Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Robert WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 7-31 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants,
Independent Aerial Equipment, Defendant-Appellant. Independent Aerial Equipment, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Enclos Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 31, 2007, which, inter alia, denied defendant/third-party plaintiff Independent Aerial Equipment's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against it and in its favor on its claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Enclos Corp., and granted Enclos's motion for summary judgment dismissing Independent's indemnification claim against it, unanimously modified, on the law, Independent Aerial Equipment's motion granted to the extent of severing and dismissing plaintiff's claim pursuant to Labor Law § 200, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
While issues of fact exist as to whether Independent was negligent in supplying a defective or unsafe scissor lift to Enclos for plaintiff's ultimate use (see Urbina v. 26 Ct. St. Assoc., LLC, 12 A.D.3d 225, 226, 784 N.Y.S.2d 524 [2004] ), plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 claim should have been dismissed (Greco v. Archdiocese of N.Y., 268 A.D.2d 300, 301, 702 N.Y.S.2d 29 [2000] ). While § 200 merely codifies the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work, Independent, as simply a lessor of equipment to one of the subcontractors, is not an owner, general contractor, or agent thereof for purposes of imposing liability under the statute and had no authority to control the activity that brought about plaintiff's alleged injury (see Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 316-317, 445 N.Y.S.2d 127, 429 N.E.2d 805 [1981]; Urbina, 12 A.D.3d at 226, 784 N.Y.S.2d 524). Since the sole potential basis for liability on Independent's part is its own negligence, the contractual provision by which Enclos agreed to indemnify Independent for losses arising from an action on account of injury occasioned by the use of such equipment is unenforceable (General Obligations Law § 5-322.1; see Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 N.Y.2d 172, 178-179, 556 N.Y.S.2d 991, 556 N.E.2d 430 [1990] ).
We have considered Independent's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 09, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)