SILK III v. County of Chautauqua, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (2002)

Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from a scaffold while reconstructing a bridge on County Road 80. Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and in searching the record and granting defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant, the title owner of the property on which the bridge is located, is an owner within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) even though the property is subject to an implied easement or right-of-way granted to third-party defendant (see Palmer v. Alltel N.Y., 227 A.D.2d 914, 915, 643 N.Y.S.2d 792, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 805, 653 N.Y.S.2d 917, 676 N.E.2d 499; see generally Coleman v. City of New York, 91 N.Y.2d 821, 822-823, 666 N.Y.S.2d 553, 689 N.E.2d 523; Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555, 560, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912; Celestine v. City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 592, 593, 446 N.Y.S.2d 131, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 938, 466 N.Y.S.2d 319, 453 N.E.2d 548). Defendant is liable notwithstanding the fact that she did not own the bridge itself (see Hilbert v. Sahlen Packing Co., 267 A.D.2d 940, 940, 700 N.Y.S.2d 890). Although defendant exercised no control over the reconstruction of the bridge, her “[l]iability rests upon the fact of ownership and whether [she] had contracted for the work or benefitted from it are legally irrelevant” (Gordon, 82 N.Y.2d at 560, 606 N.Y.S.2d 127, 626 N.E.2d 912; see Palmer, 227 A.D.2d at 915, 643 N.Y.S.2d 792).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the complaint is reinstated and the motion is granted.

MEMORANDUM: