From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brink v. Yeshiva University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 1999
259 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 2, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.).


Plaintiff Brian Brink was working at floor level when an interior chimney, also at floor level, collapsed on him during its demolition. Because both the chimney and Brink were at the same level at the time of the collapse the incident was not sufficiently attributable to elevation differentials to warrant imposition of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) ( see, Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487, 490-491; Amato v. State of New York, 241 A.D.2d 400, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 805). Nonetheless, due to the absence of any evidence that defendant Yeshiva University directed, controlled or supervised the manner in which Brink performed his work or the job site, the motion court properly granted Yeshiva's cross motion for indemnification pursuant to the common law and/or Labor Law § 200 ( see, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 293; Curtis v. 37th St. Assocs., 198 A.D.2d 62). Finally, the motion court correctly determined that Yeshiva University was also entitled to contractual indemnification based on the relevant provision of its contract with Sunstream Corporation.

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Brink v. Yeshiva University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 1999
259 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Brink v. Yeshiva University

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN BRINK et al., Appellants, v. YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, Defendant and…

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

Date published: Mar 2, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
686 N.Y.S.2d 15

Citing Cases

Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

We determined that, in fact, the kind of braces referred to in section 240(1) are “those used to support…

Narducci v. Manhasset Bay Associates

The size of the window frames required that plaintiff be able to reach surfaces located from approximately…