Fuat Krifca et al. v Bronx-Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc., et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
This construction-accident case arose from a roofing project and involved New York Labor Law § 240(1) [Scaffold Law imposing liability for elevation-related hazards], Labor Law § 241(6) [construction-site safety statute tied to specific Industrial Code violations], and common-law indemnification issues after roofing materials being hoisted to a roof fell and injured a worker.
The trial court denied summary judgment to Bronx-Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc. and The Bronx-Lebanon Hospital Center (BLHC) on plaintiffs' Labor Law § 240(1) claim and Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-8.1(f)(1)(iv), (f)(2)(i), and (f)(5) [hoisting and lifting safety rules], granted plaintiffs summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6) as predicated on 12 NYCRR § 23-8.1(f)(1)(iv), denied BLHC summary judgment on its cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Allied, and denied Flatiron's motion to dismiss Allied's third-party complaint.
The Appellate Division modified only to grant BLHC conditional summary judgment on its cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Allied; it otherwise affirmed the order, including plaintiffs' Labor Law § 240(1) victory and the denial of Flatiron's successive summary judgment motion.
The court held that plaintiff was engaged in a protected roofing activity and that the load fell during hoisting because the belts securing it were inadequate, establishing liability under Labor Law § 240(1). It further found BLHC was free from negligence and only vicariously liable, entitling it to conditional common-law indemnification from Allied. Flatiron's renewed motion failed because later testimony did not eliminate factual issues about whether Allied's invoice terms created a contractual indemnification agreement.
Background
On November 19, 2014, plaintiff Fuat Krifca, a Flatiron foreman and roofing mechanic, was working on a roof-replacement project at 1285 Fulton Avenue in the Bronx, a building owned by BLHC. Allied Building Products Corp. supplied roofing materials to Flatiron and delivered them using a boom truck. Pallets of roofing materials were hoisted to the roof with two belts and a boom. As Krifca tried to unhook one belt, the belt caught under the pallet. The lift operator re-engaged the boom before the load was fully unhooked and without receiving a signal to lift. The load rose several feet and then fell onto Krifca, allegedly causing injury.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied BLHC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6) claims and denied BLHC summary judgment on its cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Allied. It granted plaintiffs summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and under Labor Law § 241(6) insofar as predicated on 12 NYCRR § 23-8.1(f)(1)(iv). It also denied Flatiron's motion for summary judgment dismissing Allied's third-party complaint.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order solely by granting BLHC conditional summary judgment on its cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Allied. The court otherwise affirmed, holding that plaintiffs were properly awarded summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1), that any issues concerning Labor Law § 241(6) were academic in light of the Labor Law § 240(1) ruling, and that Flatiron's successive motion attacking Allied's contractual indemnification claim was properly denied because factual issues remained about the parties' intent and the effect of the invoice terms.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that receiving and unloading materials during an ongoing roof-replacement project is a protected activity under Labor Law § 240(1), and that a worker injured when a hoisted load falls because it was not adequately secured may obtain summary judgment without identifying some additional safety device that should have been supplied. The case also illustrates that a property owner shown to be free from negligence and only vicariously liable may obtain conditional common-law indemnification against another party, while disputed invoice language and party intent can defeat summary judgment on a contractual indemnification claim.
When construction materials being hoisted to a roof fall because the securing mechanism fails before the hoisting operation is complete, Labor Law § 240(1) liability can be established as a matter of law. At the same time, an owner without its own negligence may secure conditional common-law indemnification, but contractual indemnification based on unclear invoice terms will remain for trial if factual disputes persist.