Shkoditch v. One Hundred & Fifty William St. Corp.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1962
• Citation: 17 A.D.2d 168,233 N.Y.S.2d 179
• Parties: Alexander SHKODITCH, Jr., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY WILLIAM STREET CORPORATION, Royal Insurance Company, Ltd., The Liverpool and London & Globe Insurance Co., Ltd., Royal Indemnity Company and Globe Indemnity Company, Defendants-Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ARCADE CLEANING CONTRACTORS, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 179

233 N.Y.S.2d 179

17 A.D.2d 168

Alexander SHKODITCH, Jr., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY WILLIAM STREET CORPORATION, Royal

Insurance Company, Ltd., The Liverpool and London & Globe

Insurance Co., Ltd., Royal Indemnity Company and Globe

Indemnity Company, Defendants-Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ARCADE CLEANING CONTRACTORS, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Oct. 25, 1962.

Alexander Gangel, New York City, of counsel (Michels, Gangel & Walton, New York City), for defendants-appellants and third-party plaintiffs-respondents. Raymond C. Green, New York City, of counsel (Harry Schechter and Harold Klein, Washington, D. C., with him on the brief; Joseph M. Soviero, New York City), for third-party defendant-appellant.

Alfred S. Julien, New York City, of counsel (Jonathan W. Lubell, New York City, with him on the brief; Melvin Reisler, New York City), for plaintiff-respondent.

Before RABIN, J. P., and VALENTE, STEVENS, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, a window washer, while washing the outside of the windows on the fourth floor of premises 150 William Street, fell and was injured. He sues the One Hundred and Fifty William Street Corporation, the owner of the premises, and the other defendants who are tenants of that portion of the premises where the windows were being washed. The defendants claim over against the plaintiff's employer by way of a third-party complaint. Recovery was had by the plaintiff against the defendants, and the third-party plaintiffs recovered over against the third-party defendant employer. This appeal is brought by the defendants from the judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff against them, and by the third-party defendant from the judgment entered against it in favor of the third-party plaintiffs.

In his first cause of action the plaintiff seeks a recovery based upon the failure of the defendants to provide usable anchors, as required by section 202 of the Labor Law, on the windows that were being washed, 'and to provide other safety devices approved by the Board of Standards and Appeals.' In his second cause of action the plaintiff alleges the negligence of the defendant in, among other things, 'failing to have a proper, safe and reasonable means to clean the windows from the outside.'

Under section 202 of the Labor Law and the pertinent regulations of the Board of Standards and Appeals the landlord, and perhaps the tenant, had the duty to see that there were supplied safety devices and equipment to be used in connection with the cleaning of the windows, which equipment and devices were free of defects. The section allows, as an alternative to the providing of anchors outside windows, any 'other means * * * to enable such work to...