Opinion
2001-08073
Argued May 29, 2003.
June 23, 2003.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Hollywood Entertainment, Inc., individually and d/b/a Hollywood Video appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), dated August 22, 2001, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability against it under Labor Law § 240(1), denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims insofar as asserted against it, and granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant Full Service Contracting, Inc., which was for summary judgment dismissing the cross claims of the defendant Hollywood Entertainment, Inc., individually and d/b/a Hollywood Video for contribution and indemnification insofar as asserted against the defendant Full Service Contracting, Inc., with respect to the plaintiff's common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the defendant Full Service Contracting, Inc., separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it.
Fiedelman McGaw, Jericho, N.Y. (Carol A. Moore and James K. O'Sullivan of counsel), for appellant Hollywood Entertainment, Inc., individually and d/b/a Hollywood Video.
Richard J. Baldwin, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Michael T. Clancy of counsel), for appellant Full Service Contracting, Inc.
Parker Waichman (DiJoseph Portegello, New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III] of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the plaintiff, payable by the defendants Full Service Contracting, Inc., and Hollywood Entertainment Inc., individually and d/b/a Hollywood Video.
Contrary to the contention of the defendant Full Service Contracting, Inc., the Supreme Court properly denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it, as it failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it is not liable to the plaintiff under the Labor Law (see Sabato v. New York Life Ins. Co., 259 A.D.2d 535, 537).
There is no merit to the contention of the defendant Hollywood Entertainment, Inc., individually and d/b/a Hollywood Video (hereinafter Hollywood) that the Supreme Court erroneously granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment against it on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1). In support of his motion, the plaintiff alleged that Hollywood failed to provide any safety devices (see Blair v. Cristani, 296 A.D.2d 471, 471-472). In opposition to this prima facie demonstration, Hollywood failed to raise a triable issue of fact that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker or that his own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries (see Scorza v. CBE, Inc., 231 A.D.2d 564).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.