Tallchief v. Jemco Roofing
| Decision Date | 14 July 1995 |
| Parties | Jonathan TALLCHIEF, Respondent, v. JEMCO ROOFING, Buffalo Enterprise Development Corp. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, Inc., Respondents-Appellants. BUFFALO ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT CORP. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, Inc., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Tyrone LeROY, Sr., d/b/a LeRoy Construction, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. JEMCO ROOFING, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Tyrone LeROY, Sr., d/b/a LeRoy Construction, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
O'Shea, Reynolds and Cummings by David Stillwell, Buffalo, for respondent--Jemco Roofing.
Barth, Sullivan and Lancaster by Edward Taublieb, Buffalo, for respondents--Buffalo Enterprise Development Corp and Erie County Indus. Development Agency, Inc.
Maloney, Gallup, Roach, Brown and McCarthy, P.C. by Brian Sutter, Buffalo, for third-party defendant-appellant--Tyrone LeRoy, Sr., d/b/a LeRoy Const.
Miserendino, Krull and Foley by Samuel Miserendino, Buffalo, for respondent--Tallchief.
Before GREEN, J.P., and PINE, FALLON, CALLAHAN and DAVIS, JJ.
Plaintiff was employed to perform roofing work. The owners of the building, defendants-third-party plaintiffs Buffalo Enterprise Development Corp. (BEDC) and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, Inc. (ECIDA) contracted with defendant-third-party plaintiff Jemco Roofing (Jemco) to perform roofing work on the building. Jemco subcontracted the work to plaintiff's employer, third-party defendant Tyrone LeRoy, Sr., d/b/a LeRoy Construction (LeRoy). LeRoy performed the work with equipment owned by Jemco.
Plaintiff's accident occurred while LeRoy's employees were applying molten roofing asphalt to the upper surface of the building. In order to transport the hot asphalt to the roof, it was first melted at ground level in a device called a kettle. The hot tar was then piped through a two-inch pipe to the roof, where it was connected to a short section of flexible metal pipe called a flexline. The flexline was connected to a device on the roof called a hot lugger. The flexline was wedged or stuck a few inches into the hot lugger. Plaintiff was injured when the end of the flexline came out of the hot lugger, swung around and sprayed hot tar, some of which fell on him. At that time plaintiff was standing on a ladder against the building below the roof and the flexline. Plaintiff commenced this action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and § 241(6).
After joinder of issue, BEDC, ECIDA and Jemco commenced third-party actions against LeRoy for indemnification and contribution. LeRoy answered the third-party complaints. BEDC and ECIDA moved for summary judgment against Jemco and LeRoy for common-law indemnification. Jemco cross-moved for an order of conditional summary judgment against LeRoy. Plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) causes of action. Jemco cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and § 241(6) causes of action and all cross claims. BEDC and ECIDA also cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the negligence and Labor Law causes of action and all cross claims. LeRoy cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints.
Supreme Court granted the motions of third-party plaintiffs for a conditional judgment for common-law indemnification against LeRoy, but denied the motions to dismiss plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) causes of action. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of Labor Law § 240(1) liability.
We conclude that the court properly granted plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of Labor Law § 240(1) liability and properly denied defendants' motions for summary judgment on the issue of Labor Law § 241(6) liability. We agree with plaintiff that the placement of the ladder directly below the hot roofing tar failed to provide proper protection, in violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The record establishes that the injury of plaintiff was the result of a specific gravity-related accident in that he was struck by falling tar (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82). Having demonstrated that the statute was violated and that the violation was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flores v. Infrastructure Repair Serv., LLC
...Irwin v. St. Joseph's Intercommunity Hosp., 236 A.D.2d 123, 125, 665 N.Y.S.2d 773 (4th Dep't 1997) ; Tallchief v. Jemco Roofing, 217 A.D.2d 915, 915–16, 629 N.Y.S.2d 603 (4th Dep't 1995), which plaintiff was carrying, and which spilled on him and caused serious burns to his body. 12 N.Y.C.R......
-
Irwin v. St. Joseph's Intercommunity Hosp.
...that Industrial Code provision is sufficiently concrete to support a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action (see, Tallchief v. Jemco Roofing, 217 A.D.2d 915, 917, 629 N.Y.S.2d 603; see generally, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 502-505, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d Plaintif......
- Dombrowski v. Schwartz
-
White v. Sperry Supply and Warehouse Inc.
...however, that plaintiff neither fell from an elevated worksite nor was struck by a falling object (compare, Tallchief v. Jemco Roofing, 217 A.D.2d 915, 916, 629 N.Y.S.2d 603 [plaintiff struck by falling hot tar] ), and the connection between his accident and the force of gravity is, in our ......