Decided and Entered: July 16, 2026

Index No. 161247/19, 595182/20, 595970/21, 596029/21|Appeal No. 6281|Case No. 2025-02004|

Before: Webber, J.P., Kennedy, Kapnick, González, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered on or about March 18, 2025, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought judgment on liability on plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim; granted the motion of defendants/third-party plaintiffs/second third-party plaintiffs Noble Construction Group, LLC and 350 East Houston LLC (together, defendants) for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim; denied defendants' motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 claims and common-law negligence claim, and insofar as it sought judgment in defendants' favor on their contractual indemnification claims as against third-party defendant/third third-party plaintiff C & L Concrete Corp. and second third-party defendants/third third-party defendants Team Electric Inc. and Team Electric Corp. (together, Team Electric); granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought judgment on liability on plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(1); and denied Team Electric's motion for summary judgment dismissing defendants' second third-party complaint and C&L's third third-party complaint as against Team Electric, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant plaintiff's motion insofar as it sought judgment on liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and to grant defendants' motion insofar as it sought conditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claims against C&L and Team Electric, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleged that while he was working for C&L, he was injured when he was helping to carry an 800-pound electrical cabinet, or "endbox." According to plaintiff, his supervisor instructed him to assemble a team of coworkers to move and install the endbox, and he complained to the supervisor that they lacked the proper equipment to transport it. Nevertheless, after the endbox was transported inside the property by a lift, plaintiff and his coworkers manually carried the endbox at chest or knee height; when one of plaintiff's coworkers tripped on a piece of protruding rebar, the endbox pinned plaintiff against a wall.

[*2]

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, as he demonstrated that his injuries flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the endbox, and that a safety device, such as a hoist or forklift, should have been used to transport it (see Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 603 [2009]). In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to defendants' arguments, the fact that plaintiff's injury was partially attributable to the coworker tripping on the rebar does not remove it from the reach of Labor Law § 240(1), as the accident also arose at least partially from the failure to provide a safety device to protect plaintiff from the risks arising from an elevation differential (see Nunez v Bertelsman Prop., 304 AD2d 487, 488 [1st Dept 2003]).

Because we are granting plaintiff summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, his arguments on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim are academic (see Fanning v Rockefeller Univ., 106 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2013]). However, the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims are not academic because they are relevant to the defendants' claims for indemnification against C&L and Team Electric.

Supreme Court properly denied general contractor Noble summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The court correctly found that taken together, plaintiff's testimony, his foreman's testimony, and the affidavit from a Noble foreman raise an issue of fact about Noble's involvement in the endbox delivery and its control over the means and methods of the work (see Lucas v. City of New York, 236 AD3d 523, 525 [1st Dept 2025], Sandoval-Morales v. 164-20 N. Blvd., LLC, 231 AD3d 501, 503 [1st Dept 2024]).

Although the court correctly found that Team Electric was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing defendants' contractual indemnification claims against in, it should have granted conditional summary judgment to defendants on those claims. The record demonstrates that plaintiff's accident occurred during the handling of Team Electric's endbox, thus, it arose out of the work. Team Electric's project manager also testified that Team Electric was responsible for the endbox. However, factual disputes remain as to who directed C&L to unload and move the endbox, and defendants have not established their freedom from negligence thus, defendants are entitled to conditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claims against C&L and Team Electric (see Herrero v 2146 Nostrand Ave. Assocs., LLC, 193 AD3d 421, 424 [1st Dept 2021]).

[*3]

Similarly, issues of fact preclude dismissal of C&L's common-law indemnification and contribution claims against Team Electric. The record contains conflicting evidence as to Team Electric's and C&L's involvement in and supervision over the injury-producing work. Employees for both entities were involved in the transportation of the endbox, which was Team Electric's responsibility.

We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: July 16, 2026