Opinion
October 19, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with casts.
The plaintiff Henry Warnitz was injured while working on a construction project for which the defendant third-party plaintiff Liro Group, Ltd. (hereinafter Liro) was the construction manager. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs against Liro with respect to their cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), and also granted the motion made by Liro for summary judgment on its third-party claim for indemnification against the appellant Babylon Iron Works, Inc. (hereinafter Babylon). Babylon asserts that issues of fact as to Liro's actual negligence preclude the granting of summary judgment against it, and that a trial is necessary to determine the applicability of General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 ( see, Itri Brick Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 786; Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 N.Y.2d 172). We do not agree, and therefore affirm.
In Buccini v. 1568 Broadway Assocs. ( 250 A.D.2d 466, 468-469) the Appellate Division, First Department stated: "The construction manager's authority to stop the contractor's work, if the manager notices a safety violation, does not give the manager a duty to protect the contractor's employees ( Fox v. Jenny Eng'g Corp., 122 A.D.2d 532, 533, affd 70 N.Y.2d 761). The general duty to supervise the work and ensure compliance with safety regulations does not amount to supervision and control of the work site such that the supervisory entity would be liable for the negligence of the contractor who performs the day-to-day operations ( D'Antuono v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co., 231 A.D.2d 955). By the same token, "the fact that [the owner] may have dispatched persons to observe the progress and method of the work does not render it actively negligent' ( Aragon v. 233 W. 21st St., 201 A.D.2d 353, 354)."
In light of these general principles ( see also, Decotes v. Merritt Meridian Corp., 245 A.D.2d 864; Werner v. East Meadow Union Free School Dist., 245 A.D.2d 367; Tambasco v. Norton Co., 207 A.D.2d 618), there is no evidence in the record to support the inference that Liro was negligent in any way causally related to the plaintiff's accident. No finding of negligence on Liro's part being possible, the Supreme Court correctly enforced the indemnification agreement ( see, Itri Brick Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co., supra; Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners, supra).
Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Thompson and Friedmann, JJ., concur.