Opinion
May 11, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).
Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff based on the finding that plaintiff was injured when, following his supervisor's instructions, he stood on an inverted five gallon pail placed on top of a radiator to perform his job of removing 12-foot high window inlets. It does not avail appellant that adequate safety devices may have been present at the worksite, where plaintiff, far from refusing to use such devices, was instructed to use the pail instead (see, Hagins v State of New York, 81 N.Y.2d 921, 922-923; Hall v Cornell Univ., 205 A.D.2d 872). Nor does it avail appellant that plaintiff did not offer any witness statements corroborating his account of the incident, there being no bona fide issue as to plaintiff's credibility (Urrea v Sedgwick Ave. Assocs., 191 A.D.2d 319).
Summary judgment was also properly granted in the third-party action for indemnification, the evidence establishing that defendants landowners did not direct, control or supervise the work, and thus were liable only vicariously for the third-party defendant contractor's negligence (Kelly v Diesel Constr. Div., 35 N.Y.2d 1).
Concur — Ross, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.