descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Winiavski v. Martin Paint Stores

Citations: 240 A.D.2d 565; 658 N.Y.S.2d 663; 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6893

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 16, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a personal injury case, the third-party defendant appeals a Supreme Court order from Queens County granting the third-party plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment regarding common-law indemnification. The court affirms the order, with costs. The injured party, Sigmund Winiavski, sustained injuries while working on roofing at the respondent's warehouse. Winiavski and his wife sued the respondent, who subsequently filed a third-party action against the appellant, Winiavski’s employer. As the worksite owner, the respondent is liable under Labor Law § 240(1) and is entitled to common-law indemnification. The court finds no factual issue regarding the respondent's involvement in any wrongdoing that would bar indemnification, referencing case law. Justices Joy, Goldstein, Florio, and McGinity concurred with the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Absence of Factual Issue in Indemnification

Application: The court found that there was no factual issue regarding the respondent's involvement in any wrongdoing that would bar indemnification, thereby affirming the summary judgment in favor of the respondent.

Reasoning: The court finds no factual issue regarding the respondent's involvement in any wrongdoing that would bar indemnification, referencing case law.

Common-Law Indemnification

Application: The court affirmed that the respondent, as the worksite owner, is entitled to common-law indemnification from the appellant, who is the employer of the injured party.

Reasoning: The injured party, Sigmund Winiavski, sustained injuries while working on roofing at the respondent's warehouse. Winiavski and his wife sued the respondent, who subsequently filed a third-party action against the appellant, Winiavski’s employer.

Liability Under Labor Law Section 240(1)

Application: The court held that the worksite owner is liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for injuries sustained by the worker, Sigmund Winiavski, while working on roofing at the respondent's warehouse.

Reasoning: As the worksite owner, the respondent is liable under Labor Law § 240(1) and is entitled to common-law indemnification.