Case ID: ny-2d_70/html/0994-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Smith, Respondent, v Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Steel Contracting Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
    Argued January 12, 1988;
    decided February 17, 1988
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      W. Donn McCarthy for appellant.
    
      Victor Alan Oliveri for Hooker Chemical & Plastics Corp., respondent.
    
      Paul William Beltz and Russell T. Quinlan for Robert Smith, respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes upon owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide adequate safety devices to afford proper protection to those working on a building or structure (Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452: Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513). The trial court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, did not err in its determinations that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) in not providing adequate safety devices, and that the violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Thus we do not reach the issue whether defendants could be liable if adequate safety devices had been made available to plaintiff but he simply refused to use them (see, 89 AD2d 361 [Simons, J.]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judges Simons and Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.