Opinion
May 6, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.).
Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1), which is to be liberally construed ( see, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 296), imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors and their agents for failing to furnish or erect necessary safety devices to protect workers from injuries proximately caused by such failure ( see, Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452, 459). The motion court, finding that the documentary evidence indicated that no safety devices had been provided to workers by Brender Hecht Associates, the general contractor and supervisor of the project, and that such failure was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability upon his Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1) claim. Brender Hecht Associates' contention that plaintiff's errors caused his injuries is at best a claim of comparative negligence, which is not a viable defense to a Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1) claim ( see, Stolt v. General Foods Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 918, 920).
Because the contract between Brender Hecht Associates and subcontractor F.G.R. Inc., plaintiff's employer, was not executed until two days after the accident, the court also properly denied Brender Hecht Associates summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification against F.G.R. The court also properly found questions of fact as to the degree of supervision and control between Brender Hecht Associates and F.G.R.
Finally, since there was no competent proof that defendant Partners for Housing exercised any control over work performed at the project, the court properly granted its motion for summary judgment upon its claim for indemnification from Brender Hecht Associates.
Concur — Williams, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.