From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laurie v. Niagara Candy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1992
188 A.D.2d 1075 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

December 30, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Boehm, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Plaintiff Lewis P. Laurie (plaintiff), an employee of third-party defendant Friendship Construction, Inc., was injured when he fell from a ladder while engaged in the construction of a building owned by defendant Niagara Candy, Inc. Although plaintiff wore a safety belt with a tie-off line that he was not using, no proof was offered that he was told to use it under the circumstances in which he fell. Thus, there is no merit to the argument of Friendship and defendant and third-party plaintiff Rigger Construction Co., Inc., the general contractor, that plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker (see, Donovan v City of Buffalo, 185 A.D.2d 703).

The court properly granted Niagara Candy's cross motion for summary judgment against Rigger for common-law and contractual indemnification and Rigger's cross motion for summary judgment against Friendship for common-law indemnification because there was no proof that either Niagara Candy or Rigger directed, supervised or controlled the work in question (see, Schwalm v County of Monroe, 158 A.D.2d 994; Pietsch v Moog, Inc., 156 A.D.2d 1019; cf., De Crisci v PC Food Mkts., 107 A.D.2d 1029).


Summaries of

Laurie v. Niagara Candy, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1992
188 A.D.2d 1075 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Laurie v. Niagara Candy, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LEWIS P. LAURIE et al., Respondents, v. NIAGARA CANDY, INC., Respondent…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 30, 1992

Citations

188 A.D.2d 1075 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

Novak v. BASF Corp.

The recalcitrant worker defense is only valid where the worker refused to use an available safety device.…

Murray v. Niagara Frontier Transp. Authority

We reject defendants' contention that plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied…