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.
Douglas GRANILLO, plaintiff-respondent, v. DONNA KAREN CO., defendant third-party plaintiff, Richter & Ratner Contracting Corp., et al., defendants third-party plaintiffs-appellants; All City Interior Contracting, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants third-party plaintiffs Richter & Ratner Contracting Corp. and Hernasco Warehouse, Inc., appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated March 26, 2004, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging violation of Labor Law § 240(1), granted the third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, and denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of contractual indemnification against the third-party defendant.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff established the appellants' liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that he fell from an unsecured ladder, and that the failure to secure the ladder was the proximate cause of his injuries (see Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452, 497 N.Y.S.2d 880, 488 N.E.2d 810; Schuler v. Kings Plaza Shopping Ctr. and Mar., 294 A.D.2d 556, 558, 743 N.Y.S.2d 141; Lacey v. Turner Constr. Co., 275 A.D.2d 734, 735, 713 N.Y.S.2d 207; Skalko v. Marshall's Inc., 229 A.D.2d 569, 570, 646 N.Y.S.2d 140). The appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
The third-party defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. The third-party defendant established, prima facie, that the subject indemnification agreement was executed after the plaintiff's accident (cf. Taylor v. Doral Inn, 5 A.D.3d 588, 589, 772 N.Y.S.2d 830; Stabile v. Viener, 291 A.D.2d 395, 737 N.Y.S.2d 381). In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra).
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: April 18, 2005
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)