From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daniels v. Bohn/Fiore, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2002-03724

Argued November 7, 2002.

December 9, 2002.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants 4518 Associates (Ltd Ptshp) and Tishman Speyer Properties appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated March 6, 2002, as denied their cross motion for summary judgment on their cross claim for contractual indemnification against the defendant Bed Bath and Beyond.

Ahmuty, Demers McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Frederick B. Simpson and Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for appellants.

William J. Fitzpatrick, Smithtown, N.Y. (David D. Austin of counsel), for respondent.

Joseph C. Bellard (Carol R. Finocchio, New York, N.Y. [Lisa M. Comeau] of counsel), for defendant Bohn/Fiore, Inc.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondent payable by the appellant.

As the owner and general managing agent of the subject building undergoing physical alterations, the appellants may be liable pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) once the plaintiff establishes violations thereof that proximately caused his injuries (see Otero v. Cablevision of New York, 297 A.D.2d 632; Pineda v. 79 Barrow St. Owners Corp., 297 A.D.2d 634; Kane v. Coundorous, 293 A.D.2d 309). The appellants may seek contractual indemnification from those parties whose negligence was responsible for the plaintiff's injuries (see Lazzaro v. MJM Indus., 288 A.D.2d 440; Kennelty v. Darlind Constr., 260 A.D.2d 443) to the extent that the appellants do not seek indemnification for their own acts of negligence (see Kennelty v. Darlind Constr., supra at 446; General Obligations Law § 5-322.1).

In the instant case, the appellants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that they were free of negligence contributing to the plaintiff's accident (see Reynolds v. County of Westchester, 270 A.D.2d 473). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied the appellants summary judgment on their cross motion for contractual indemnification from the codefendant lessee Bed Bath and Beyond.

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Daniels v. Bohn/Fiore, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 2002
300 A.D.2d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Daniels v. Bohn/Fiore, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH DANIELS, plaintiff, v. BOHN/FIORE, INC., ET AL., defendants, BED…

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

Date published: Dec 9, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 341 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 765

Citing Cases

Fernandez v. City of New York

The City, furthermore, did not establish that it did not have the authority to control the work of the…

YERY SUH v. FLEET BANK, N.A.

" Likewise, more recently in Daniels v. Bohn/Fiore, Inc., 300 AD2d 341 (2nd Dept.,2002), the Second…