Grove v. Cornell Univ.
| Decision Date | 16 June 2017 |
| Citation | 54 N.Y.S.3d 260,151 A.D.3d 1813 |
| Parties | Dallas M. GROVE, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Skanska Usa Building, Inc., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants, Skyworks Equipment Leasing, LLC, Skyworks, LLC, And JLG Industries, Inc., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
151 A.D.3d 1813
54 N.Y.S.3d 260
Dallas M. GROVE, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY, Skanska Usa Building, Inc., Defendants–Respondents–Appellants,
Skyworks Equipment Leasing, LLC, Skyworks, LLC, And JLG Industries, Inc., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
June 16, 2017.
Barclay Damon, LLP, Buffalo (Dennis R. McCoy of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants–Respondents Skyworks Equipment Leasing, LLC, and Skyworks, LLC.
Colucci & Gallaher, P.C., Buffalo (Marybeth P. Mantharam of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant–Respondent JLG Industries, Inc.
Hurwitz & Fine, P.C., Buffalo (David R. Adams of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents–Appellants.
Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP, Buffalo (John A. Collins of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Respondent.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff was injured when he fell from an elevated boom lift that he was using to install windows in a building under construction at defendant Cornell University (Cornell). At the time of the accident, plaintiff was employed as a glazier by a subcontractor hired by defendant Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska), the general contractor on the construction project. The elevated boom lift was designed and manufactured by defendant JLG Industries, Inc. (JLG) and leased to plaintiff's employer by defendants Skyworks Equipment Leasing, LLC, and Skyworks, LLC (collectively, Skyworks defendants).
Plaintiff originally commenced an action in Supreme Court, Tompkins County (Mulvey, J.), against only Cornell and Skanska,
alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6). That court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability and granted the cross motion of Cornell and Skanska seeking summary judgment dismissing that claim. On appeal, the Third Department affirmed the order (Grove v. Cornell Univ., 75 A.D.3d 718, 904 N.Y.S.2d 559 ), but the Court of Appeals thereafter modified the Third Department's order by denying the cross motion and reinstating the Labor Law § 240(1) claim (Grove v. Cornell Univ., 17 N.Y.3d 875, 933 N.Y.S.2d 635, 957 N.E.2d 1137 ). While the appeal to the Court of Appeals was pending, plaintiff, Cornell and Skanska stipulated to dismiss the remaining claims on the merits.
In addition, while the appeal to the Third Department was pending, plaintiff commenced an action in Supreme Court, Erie County, against the Skyworks defendants, JLG and another defendant that is no longer a party. In that action, plaintiff alleged that his injuries were the result of the defective condition of the boom lift. Plaintiff alleged causes of action for negligence and defective manufacture and design against JLG and negligence in the maintenance, repair, servicing and/or inspection of the boom lift against the Skyworks defendants. After the Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Cornell and Skanska, the Tompkins County and Erie County actions were consolidated into a single action in Supreme Court, Erie County. In their amended answer following consolidation, Cornell and Skanska asserted cross claims for indemnification against the Skyworks defendants and JLG. JLG did not assert any cross claims in its answer.
JLG moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against it, Cornell and Skanska cross-moved for summary judgment seeking a conditional order of indemnification against JLG, the Skyworks defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them, and JLG moved separately for leave to assert cross claims for contribution against the other defendants. By the order on appeal, Supreme Court (Michalski, A.J.) granted JLG's motion for leave to file cross claims for contribution and otherwise denied the motions and the cross motion.
Turning first to the appeal of the Skyworks defendants, we conclude that the court erred in denying their motion seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claims of Cornell and Skanska against them, and in granting that part of JLG's motion seeking leave to assert a cross claim against the Skyworks defendants for contribution. The Skyworks defendants established as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olivieri v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
...dismissing plaintiff's complaint forecloses any finding that NJS's negligence contributed to the accident (see Grove v. Cornell Univ. , 151 A.D.3d 1813, 1816-1817, 54 N.Y.S.3d 260 [4th Dept. 2017] ).Finally, we agree with NJS that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing all cross clai......
-
Lorquet v. Timoney Tech. Inc.
...a contractual obligation, standing alone, does not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party" ( Grove v. Cornell Univ. , 151 A.D.3d 1813, 1815, 54 N.Y.S.3d 260 [4th Dept. 2017] ). Timoney asserted that none of the Espinal exceptions to that general rule applies (see generally Es......
-
Hernandez v. Grando's LLC
...generally divests itself of a duty to maintain the land or chattel in a safe condition. For example, in Grove v. Cornell University , 54 N.Y.S.3d 260, 151 A.D.3d 1813 (2017), the court held that the lessor of a boom lift from which an employee of the lessee fell and injured himself while in......
-
Allington v. Templeton Found.
...the issue of Pulver's contractual obligation to indemnify Bassett. Unlike common-law indemnification (see Grove v. Cornell Univ., 151 A.D.3d 1813, 1816, 54 N.Y.S.3d 260 [4th Dept. 2017] ), contractual indemnification is permissible where, as here, there is no finding of negligence on the pa......