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.
Michael A. LEO and Jill A. Leo, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ARTCO CONTRACTING, INC., F.L. Heughes & Co., Inc., Defendants-Appellants,
John Clark and Clark Rigging & Rental Corporation, Defendants-Respondents. Artco Contracting, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Niagara Erecting, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
F.L. Heughes & Co., Inc., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Niagara Erecting, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.)
Michael A. Leo (plaintiff), an employee of third-party defendant, Niagara Erecting, Inc. (Niagara), was injured when he fell approximately 40 feet while erecting a beam of structural steel. Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff fell when struck by a beam of iron or steel that was being hoisted by a crane to his location. It is undisputed that plaintiff was not tied off to a safety line or other object at the time of the accident. Because factual issues exist whether adequate and proper safety devices were provided to protect plaintiff from falling, Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) (see, Kulp v. Gannett Co. [Appeal No. 1], 259 A.D.2d 969, 687 N.Y.S.2d 840). Thus, we reverse the order in appeal No. 1 and deny plaintiffs' motion.
The court also erred in granting the cross motion of defendant-third-party plaintiff Artco Contracting, Inc. (Artco) for summary judgment seeking a conditional order of common-law indemnification against Niagara. Factual issues exist whether Artco was negligent in conducting the safety meeting on the morning prior to plaintiff's accident and in advising ironworkers regarding the weather that day, thereby precluding summary judgment on the issue of Artco's entitlement to common-law indemnification (see, Eastman v. Volpi Mfg. USA, Co., 229 A.D.2d 913, 645 N.Y.S.2d 214). Thus, we modify the order in appeal No. 2 by denying the cross motion of Artco.
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied.
MEMORANDUM:
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: November 12, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)