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.
Cayetano Ortiz–Cruz, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Irma L. Evers as trustee of the Irma L. Evers Revocable Trust, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Fiedler Roofing Co., Defendant–Respondent.
Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (John M. Shaw of counsel), for Cayetano Ortiz–Cruz and Idalia Del Carmen Taxilagas, respondents.
Casone & Kluepfel, LLP, Garden City (James K. O'Sullivan of counsel), for Fiedler Roofing Co., respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elizabeth A. Taylor, J.), entered July 27, 2016, which granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, and denied the cross motion of defendant owners for summary judgment on their cross claim for common-law indemnification as against defendant Fiedler Roofing Co. (Fielder), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly determined that plaintiffs were entitled to partial summary judgment against defendant owners on the issue of section 240(1) liability because the ladder that plaintiff Cayetano Ortiz–Cruz was using to take measurements in preparation for work to be performed on the roof of defendant owners' building broke, causing him to fall to the ground (see Weber v. Baccarat, Inc., 70 AD3d 487 [1st Dept 2010] ). Contrary to defendant owners' contention, the work that plaintiff was engaged in was a protected activity within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) (see e.g. Velasco v. Green–Wood Cemetery, 8 AD3d 88, 89 [1st Dept 2004] ).
Defendant owners' cross motion for summary judgment on their cross claim for common-law indemnification as against Fiedler was properly denied. Although defendant owners hired Fiedler to perform roof repairs and Fiedler subcontracted the work to plaintiff's employer, the evidence does not establish as a matter of law that Fiedler directed or controlled plaintiff's work (see e.g. McCarthy v. Turner Constr. Inc., 17 NY3d 369, 377–378 [2011] ).
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 4138
Decided: May 30, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)