105 A.D.3d 692
N.Y. App. Div.2013Background
- Plaintiff Durando, a scaffolding installer, was injured on the SS Chemical Pioneer at the Brooklyn Navy Yard dry dock.
- Durando and wife sued multiple defendants including City of New York (landowner) and related entities under state tort and labor statutes.
- Defendants third-party plaintiffs (City of NY, GMD Enterprises, GMD Shipyard, BNYDC) asserted third-party indemnity/contribution claims against Champion Construction (Champion Scaffold).
- The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on Labor Law §240(1) liability against City and dismissed third-party indemnity/contribution claims; it denied some cross-motions.
- The court also held that LHWCA bars claims against GMD Shipyard and that GMD Enterprises lacked control over work to impose liability; it awarded GMD Shipyard contractual indemnification against Champion.
- The appeals by the third-party plaintiffs were dismissed as not aggrieved; otherwise the order was affirmed to the extent described.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against City survive. | Durando supports liability under §240(1). | City contends no triable issue; maritime context preemption issues. | Yes; §240(1) liability against City affirmed. |
| Whether LHWCA preempts or bars claims against GMD Shipyard. | Durando argues exclusive remedy under LHWCA does not apply to shipyard. | GMD Shipyard asserts LHWCA bars action. | LHWCA bars claims against GMD Shipyard. |
| Whether GMD Enterprises can be liable as landlord control party. | GMD Enterprises should be liable as in-control party. | GMD Enterprises did not control ship repair work. | Yes; no triable issue on control; dismissal upheld. |
| Whether Champion is liable under contractual indemnification; governing law. | Indemnity validity under maritime contract applies. | Maritime law governs indemnity; contract favors Champion. | GMD Shipyard entitled to contractual indemnification from Champion. |
| Whether City's third-party indemnification/contribution claim survives under state law vs maritime law. | State law governs damages/indemnity. | Maritime law would govern indemnity issues. | Barred; Workers’ Compensation § 11 preempts; state-law claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1994) (maritime jurisdiction not exclusive; state action may supplement maritime law)
- Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1995) (establishes maritime tort jurisdiction and preemption principles)
- Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199 (U.S. 1996) (preemption of state law by general maritime law considerations)
- Grant Smith-Porter Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1922) (modification/supplementation of maritime law by state action)
- Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1921) (health and safety regulation within maritime commerce context)
- Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290 (N.Y. 1992) (landlord/contractor control distinctions in liability)