Hernandez v. Ten Ten Co.
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered October 14, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted Prudential’s motion and Schmergel Construction’s cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s causes of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the motion and cross motion as to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and reinstate the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, the third-party complaint and all cross claims and counterclaims sounding in common-law indemnification or contribution against all defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The motion court erroneously dismissed plaintiff electrician’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims against the general contractor Schmergel and building lessee Prudential. The record presents triable issues of fact as to whether construction was ongoing at
Plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claims were properly dismissed for failure to identify any violation of the Industriad Code (see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505 [1993]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Nardelli and Malone, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.