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.
James GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGLEBROOK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants-Respondents; Anglebrook Limited Partnership, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants; Darby Masonry Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered October 4, 1999, as denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), and the third-party plaintiffs separately appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the same order as denied that branch of their separate motion which was for summary judgment on their cause of action for contractual indemnification against the third-party defendant.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff alleges that he fell while descending from the fourth to the third tier of a scaffold because there was no ladder in place between the two tiers. As there was contradictory deposition testimony regarding whether there was a ladder at that location, there remains an issue of fact to be determined by the jury (see, Clark v. 345 E. 52nd St. Owners, 245 A.D.2d 410, 666 N.Y.S.2d 207).
Furthermore, we agree with the Supreme Court that there are factual issues which preclude the granting of summary judgment on the third-party plaintiffs' cause of action for contractual indemnification. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion (see, Soto v. Alert No. 1 Alarm Sys., 272 A.D.2d 466, 707 N.Y.S.2d 507; cf., Kanarvogel v. Tops Appliance City, 271 A.D.2d 409, 705 N.Y.S.2d 644).
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: February 05, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)