Calogrides v Spring Scaffolding, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 07704 [89 AD3d 434]

November 1, 2011

Appellate Division, First Department

— [*1]

Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman, LLP, New York (Denise A. Palmeri of counsel), for appellant.

Paul B. Weitz & Associates, P.C., New York (Steven J. Zaloudek of counsel), for Calogrides respondents.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, New York (Matthew P. Ross of counsel), for Calistro Construction Corp., respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about August 24, 2010, which denied defendant third-party plaintiff Spring Scaffolding, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in Spring Scaffolding’s favor dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against it.

As it is undisputed that Spring is not an owner or contractor or agent for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), the causes of action under those Labor Law sections should be dismissed as against it ( see Morales v Spring Scaffolding, Inc. , 24 AD3d 42 [2005]). The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should be dismissed as against Spring because there is no evidence that Spring’s initial installation of the sidewalk bridge was negligent or defective or that Spring otherwise breached any duty owed to plaintiff ( compare Morales , 24 AD3d at 47 [citing evidence that parapet wall violated Industrial Code height requirement]; Barraco v First Lenox Terrace Assoc. , 25 AD3d 427 , 428 [2006] [sidewalk bridge “appears not to have been built to code”]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Catterson, Moskowitz, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ..