Larone Butler v. Marco Realty Associates, L.P., et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction/demolition site safety and coordination of trades under New York Labor Law § 240(1) [New York 'Scaffold Law' imposing absolute liability on owners/contractors for elevation-related risks where failure to provide proper safety devices is a proximate cause], Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace; liability depends on control over the premises or the means and methods of the work], and contractual indemnification limits under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 [voids construction indemnity agreements to the extent they purport to indemnify an indemnitee for its own negligence], as well as Workers' Compensation Law § 11 [limits third-party indemnity/contribution claims against employers to cases involving 'grave injury'].
Granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability against the building defendants; granted Always First summary judgment dismissing common-law indemnification and contribution; denied the building defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1) and common-law negligence claims and denied their motions for contractual indemnification against Always First and QCC.
Modified to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Marco Realty, Old Navy, and The Gap; otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court’s order.
The accident arose from means and methods, and the owner/tenants exercised no supervisory control over the injury-producing work; issues of fact remain as to the general contractor’s control/coordination, so § 240(1) liability stands and contractual indemnification cannot be summarily resolved.
Background
Plaintiff, a demolition laborer employed by Always First, was working in a subcellar when a pipe approximately 8 inches wide and 10 feet long—partially cut by another trade hours earlier—fell from the ceiling onto him. The object required securing and no enumerated safety device was provided. There is a factual dispute over who cut the pipe and whether removal was QCC’s responsibility. James Hunt Construction served as general contractor; Marco Realty (owner) and Old Navy/The Gap (tenants) did not direct plaintiff’s work.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court (New York County) granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability against Marco Realty, Old Navy, The Gap, and James Hunt; granted Always First’s motion dismissing common-law indemnification and contribution (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11); and denied the building defendants’ efforts to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1) and common-law negligence claims and to obtain contractual indemnification against Always First and QCC.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held plaintiff made a prima facie showing for Labor Law § 240(1) because the partially cut pipe was a falling object that required securing and no adequate safety device was provided; defendants failed to raise a triable issue. It modified to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as to Marco Realty, Old Navy, and The Gap because the accident involved means and methods and those parties lacked supervisory control. As to James Hunt, issues of fact regarding its control of trade scheduling and ability to prevent the unsafe condition precluded dismissal of § 200 and negligence claims. The court affirmed denial of contractual indemnification claims against Always First and QCC because James Hunt—the sole indemnitee—may be negligent (General Obligations Law § 5-322.1), and, as to QCC, factual issues remain whether plaintiff’s injury arose out of its work. It also affirmed dismissal of common-law indemnification and contribution against Always First because plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11).
Legal Significance
Reaffirms falling-object liability under Labor Law § 240(1) when an object being cut/demolished requires securing and no proper safety device is provided; clarifies that owners/tenants are not liable under Labor Law § 200 for means-and-methods accidents absent supervisory control, while general contractors may face liability for negligent coordination. Confirms that contractual indemnification in construction is limited by General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 and cannot be awarded on summary judgment where indemnitee negligence is unresolved, and that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 bars common-law indemnity/contribution absent grave injury.
Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) falling-object claim is upheld; § 200 and common-law negligence claims are dismissed as to non-controlling owner/tenants but continue against the general contractor due to triable issues on coordination; contractual indemnification awaits a negligence finding; employer common-law indemnity/contribution is barred absent a grave injury.