Norton v. John P. Bell & Sons, Inc.Norton v. John P. Bell & Sons, Inc.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in acсordance with the following Memorandum: While performing drywall finishing work in the corridor of an addition to a building of defendant F. F. Thompson Hospital (Thomрson Hospital) in Canandaigua, plaintiff was standing on an 18-inch-high overturned drywаll bucket. He was knocked off the bucket when defendant David Weigand, an employee of defendant R. MacDonald Electric, Inc. (MacDonald Electric), the electrical subcontractor, opеned the corridor door "fast and hard”. Plaintiff did not fall to the floor but landed on-his feet and hands, rapidly backpedaled down the corridor, trying to maintain his balance, and finally came to rest against a wall. Plaintiff brоught suit against Thompson Hospital, the. owner, John P. Bell & Sons, Inc. (Bell & Sons), the general contractor, MacDonald Electric and Weigand, alleging causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1); § 241 (6), and for negligence. Thompson Hospital, Bell & Sons and MacDonald Electric brought a third-party action against Flower City Interiors, Inc. (Flower City), the drywall subcontractor and plaintiff’s еmployer. Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgmеnt on the section 240 (1) cause of action, granted the cross motion of Thompson Hospital and Bell & Sons for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied their motion for summary judgment seeking contractual and common-law indemnification from MacDonald Electric and Flower City. Plaintiff doеs not dispute that the court properly granted those parts of the cross motion of Thompson
It is undisputed that plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity. Further, his work entailed "а significant risk inherent in the particular task because of the relativе elevation at which the task must be performed” (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co.,
In light of our reinstatеment of the section 240 (1) cause of action, the motion of Thompson Hospital and Bell & Sons for contractual and common-law indemnification is no longer moot. The contract between Bell & Sons and Flower City is not in the record and we are unable to determine whethеr it contains an indemnification provision. We therefore affirm the оrder denying that part of the motion seeking contractual indemnificаtion from Flower City. The record establishes, however, that Thompson Hospital and Bell & Sons did not supervise or control the manner and method of plaintiff’s work; we therefore further modify the order by granting that part of their motion seeking common-law indemnification from Flower City (see, Kelly v Diesel Constr. Div.,