You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM; QUESTION ...
, ,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff, who was not wearing a harness, had fallen through a skylight. The anchor points for harnesses had not yet been installed. The employer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the property owner’s third-party complaint seeking indemnification was, however, properly denied. The Workers’ Compensation Law allows suit only when the injury is grave (not so here) or where there is a written indemnification agreement. Here there was an indemnification agreement entered after the accident. There was a question of fact whether the agreement was intended to be effective retroactively:

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that he was not provided with necessary protection from the gravity-related risk of his work and that the absence of the necessary protection was a proximate cause of his injuries … .

… An employer may be held liable for contribution or indemnification only when its employee has sustained a grave injury as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Law or when there is a “written contract entered into prior to the accident or occurrence by which the employer had expressly agreed to contribution or indemnification of the claimant” … . The Workers’ Compensation Law does not bar indemnification or contribution pursuant to a written agreement that was entered into after the employee’s injury and which the parties agree will have retroactive effect … . “[I]ndemnity contracts are to be strictly construed to avoid reading into them duties which the parties did not intend to be assumed” … . Therefore, an indemnity contract will not be held to have retroactive effect “unless by its express words or necessary implication it clearly appears to be the parties’ intention to include past obligations” … . Cacanoski v 35 Cedar Place Assoc., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 00956, 2nd Dept 2-8-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY)/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY)/CONTRACT LAW (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE EFFECTIVE RETROACTIVELY)

You might also like
PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ERRORS WERE NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION REVERSED FOR THREE REASONS; FAILURE TO GIVE THE ACCOMPLICE IN FACT JURY INSTRUCTION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, AND INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
Delay In Retaining Expert Did Not Warrant Preclusion of Expert’s Testimony
THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF A CONTRACT DEMONSTRATED BREACH OF CONTRACT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO ASSESS DAMAGES, CONVERSION CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BASED UPON BREACH OF CONTRACT ALONE.
DEPARTMENT STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CONDITION.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE RE AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROBATION AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO A HEARING, APPELLATE REVIEW APPROPRIATE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE OWNER OF THE DEFECTIVE LADDER WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS PURCHASED AT A PARTICULAR HOME DEPOT STORE, IN THE FACE OF PROOF THE STORE DID NOT OPEN UNTIL YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED PURCHASE, THE OWNER OF THE LADDER ALLEGED THE LADDER WAS EITHER PURCHASED AT A DIFFERENT TIME OR AT A DIFFERENT HOME DEPOT STORE, HOME DEPOT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CORRIDOR FORMED BY LUMBER AND MATERIALS PILED ON EITHER SIDE WAS A PASSAGEWAY... ETHICAL VIOLATION CANNOT BE USED AS A SWORD TO AVOID PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY’S...