CompFox AI Summary
This dissenting opinion by Judge Catterson concerns a construction accident where an employee of Port Morris Tile Corp. was injured by an exposed live electrical wire. The plaintiff sued Plaza Construction Corp. (general contractor) and Five Star Electrical Corp. (electrical subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Plaza cross-claimed against Five Star for contractual indemnification. The motion court denied Plaza's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claim, and the majority affirmed this denial. Judge Catterson dissents, arguing that Five Star failed to prove Plaza was actively negligent, and Plaza did not have sufficient actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition to remedy it, thereby making General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 inapplicable. The dissent contends Plaza is entitled to contractual indemnification from Five Star and its motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
Sosa v. 46th Street Development LLC is a workers' compensation case decided in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This dissenting opinion by Judge Catterson concerns a construction accident where an employee of Port Morris Tile Corp. was injured by an exposed live electrical wire. The plaintiff sued Plaza Construction Corp. (general contractor) and Five Star Electrical Corp. (electrical subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Plaza cross-claimed against Five Star for contractual indemnification. The motion court denied Plaza's motion for summary judgment on its indemnification claim, and the majority affirmed this denial. Judge Catterson dissents, arguing that Five Star failed to prove Plaza was actively negligent, and Plaza did not have sufficient actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition to remedy it, thereby making General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 inapplicable. The dissent contends Plaza is entitled to contractual indemnification from Five Star and its motion for summary judgment should have been granted.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.