Opinion
2011-11-1
Michael CALOGRIDES, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents,v.SPRING SCAFFOLDING, INC., Defendant–Appellant,Calistro Construction Corp., Defendant–Respondent,West New York Restoration of CT, Inc., et al., Defendants.[And A Third–Party Action].
Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP, New York (Denise A. Palmeri of counsel), for appellant.Paul B. Weitz & Associates, P.C., New York (Steven J. Zaloudek of counsel), for Calogrides respondents.Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York (Matthew P. Ross of counsel), for Calistro Construction Corp., respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about August 24, 2010, which denied defendant/third-party plaintiff Spring Scaffolding, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in Spring Scaffolding's favor dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it.
As it is undisputed that Spring is not an owner or contractor or agent for the purposes of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), the causes of action under those Labor Law sections should be dismissed as against it ( see Morales v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc., 24 A.D.3d 42, 802 N.Y.S.2d 41 [2005] ). The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should be dismissed as against Spring because there is no evidence that Spring's initial installation of the sidewalk bridge was negligent or defective or that Spring otherwise breached any duty owed to plaintiff ( compare Morales, 24 A.D.3d at 47, 802 N.Y.S.2d 41 [citing evidence that parapetwall violated Industrial Code height requirement]; Barraco v. First Lenox Terrace Assoc., 25 A.D.3d 427, 428, 810 N.Y.S.2d 8 [2006] [sidewalk bridge “appears not to have been built to code”] ).
FRIEDMAN, J.P., CATTERSON, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ., concur.