Opinion
2003-01929.
Decided June 14, 2004.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, Black Decker (U.S.), Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated December 18, 2002, as denied that branch of its motion which was to dismiss so much of the third third-party complaint as asserted a cause of action for indemnification.
Jeffrey Samel Partners, New York, N.Y. (David Samel of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas D. Hughes, New York, N.Y. (Richard C. Rubenstein of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P. THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendant third-party plaintiff and third third-party plaintiff, 10 Colonial Avenue, LLC (hereinafter Colonial), hired a contractor to perform renovations in an office building it owned. The plaintiff, an employee of the contractor, was injured while using a table saw that lacked a protective guard to cover its blade, as required by the Industrial Code ( see 12 NYCRR 23-1.12[c][2]). The plaintiff commenced an action against Colonial and the manufacturer of the saw, the defendant second third-party plaintiff and third third-party defendant, Black Decker (U.S.), Inc. (hereinafter Black Decker).
Contrary to Black Decker's contention, a sufficient nexus exists between Colonial's alleged liability under Labor Law § 241(6) and Black Decker's alleged wrongful acts to support Colonial's indemnification claim against it ( see McDermott v. City of New York, 50 N.Y.2d 211; Kelly v. Diesel Constr. Div. of Carl A. Morse, Inc., 35 N.Y.2d 1; McFall v. Compagnie Maritime Belge (Lloyd Royal) S.A., 304 N.Y. 314, 330-331; Elkman v. Southgate Owners Corp., 246 A.D.2d 314; cf. Guzman v. Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 69 N.Y.2d 559, 567-569; Aetna Life Cas. Co. v. Blue Bird Coach Co., 140 A.D.2d 476, 478). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Black Decker's motion which was to dismiss so much of the third third-party complaint as asserted a cause of action for indemnification.
FLORIO, J.P., ADAMS, COZIER and LIFSON, JJ., concur.