Cianciulli v. Urban Foundation/Engineering, LLC: Clarifying Subcontractor Liability and Indemnification under New York Labor Law

Introduction

In Cianciulli v. Urban Foundation/Engineering, LLC (2025 NYSlipOp 02184), the Appellate Division, Second Department, addressed critical issues under New York’s Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and the right to contractual indemnification. The action arose from a workplace accident in Brooklyn in April 2015, when Joseph Cianciulli, a project executive for the demolition subcontractor Gramercy Group, Inc. (“Gramercy”), was struck by an excavator bucket operated by employees of Urban Foundation/Engineering, LLC and Urban Foundation Company, Inc. (together, the “Urban defendants”). Plaintiffs (including Mr. Cianciulli and his wife) sued the Urban defendants, the demolition contractor 33 Bond GC, LLC (“Bond GC”), the owner/managing-agent defendants (the “Bond defendants”), and others, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Urban defendants and other contractors moved for summary judgment dismissing those claims insofar as asserted against them, and the Bond defendants sought contractual indemnification from Gramercy.

Summary of the Judgment

On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the lower court’s November 25, 2020 order. It held that the moving defendants had not met their burden to show as a matter of law that the Urban defendants lacked supervisory or controlling authority over the injury-producing work, and that Bond GC likewise retained the requisite supervisory control. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and § 241(6) claims against the Urban defendants and the § 200/common-law negligence claims against Bond GC was reversed and those branches of the motion were denied. Additionally, the court concluded that, because triable issues of fact remained as to the subcontractor’s negligence, the right to contractual indemnification could not be resolved on summary judgment. The modified order was affirmed insofar as it denied dismissal, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Comes v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. (82 NY2d 876): Affirms that Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty of owners and general contractors to provide a safe workplace.
Messina v. City of New York (147 AD3d 748) and Kearney v. Dynegy, Inc. (151 AD3d 1037): Require proof of supervisory or control authority over the injury-producing activity when recovery under § 200 is sought against a subcontractor.
Fonck v. City of New York (198 AD3d 874) and Erickson v. Cross Ready Mix, Inc. (75 AD3d 519): Distinguish dangerous premises claims from method-of-work claims under Labor Law § 200.
Jarnutowski v. City of Long Beach (210 AD3d 881) and Delaluz v. Walsh (228 AD3d 619): Clarify that § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty to comply with Industrial Code safety regulations and that a subcontractor may be a statutory agent if it controls the activity.
Jamindar v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist. (90 AD3d 612) and McAllister v. Construction Consultants L.I., Inc. (83 AD3d 1013): Hold that an indemnification clause cannot be enforced on summary judgment if the indemnitee’s own negligence remains in dispute.

Legal Reasoning

The court emphasized two core principles:

Supervisory/Control Authority under Labor Law § 200: To dismiss a § 200 claim against a subcontractor on summary judgment, a moving party must demonstrate that the subcontractor had no right to supervise or control the method, materials, or safety measures of the work which caused the injury. Here, the Urban subcontract expressly reserved to Urban the “means, methods, sequences and techniques of construction and for the safe performance of the Work.” Gramercy submitted no evidence negating that authority. Similarly, Bond GC’s project manager testified that Bond GC personnel directed safety on site and could instruct workers. Those admissions created triable issues of fact on supervisory control.
Nondelegable Duty and Section 241(6): Labor Law § 241(6) incorporates Industrial Code regulations imposing specific safety requirements. Liability attaches to an owner, general contractor, or their agent if the defendant had authority to control the unsafe condition or work activity. The Urban defendants, by contract and practice, oversaw excavation operations. No summary evidence established compliance with the cited Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-9.4(h)(4) & 23-9.5(c)), so dismissal was improper.
Contractual Indemnification: Under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, an indemnity agreement will not cover an indemnitee’s own negligence unless the contract clearly and unambiguously expresses that intent. Because Gramercy’s negligence remained contested, summary resolution of the Bond defendants’ indemnification claim was premature.

Impact

Cianciulli provides guidance for practitioners handling summary judgment in construction-site litigation:

It reaffirms that contracts granting a subcontractor control over methods and safety measures will preclude dismissal of § 200 and § 241(6) claims unless negated by unequivocal evidence.
It underscores the necessity of submitting affirmative proof of compliance with Industrial Code provisions to obtain § 241(6) dismissals.
It confirms that disputes over an indemnitee’s own negligence will bar summary enforcement of indemnification clauses.

Future actions will likely see more detailed contract drafting regarding supervisory authority and clearer allocation of safety responsibilities, as well as earlier and more thorough evidentiary submissions to support summary judgment motions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Labor Law § 200: A statutory codification of the common-law duty owed by owners and general contractors (and their agents) to provide a safe workplace. Liability may extend to subcontractors who control the hazardous means or methods of work.
Labor Law § 241(6): Imposes a nondelegable duty to adhere to specific safety regulations in the Industrial Code. Violation of a mandatory safety rule may give rise to a claim against any party with authority over the unsafe condition or process.
Industrial Code (12 NYCRR): Regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor setting forth detailed safety standards for construction, excavation, scaffolding, and other trades.
Common-law negligence: A tort claim alleging breach of a general duty of care, distinct from statutory duties under the Labor Law.
Contractual indemnification: A contractual promise by one party (the indemnitor) to compensate another (the indemnitee) for losses or liabilities incurred, potentially including the indemnitee’s own negligence, but only if clearly and unambiguously stated in the contract.

Conclusion

Cianciulli v. Urban Foundation/Engineering, LLC sharpens the test for summary judgment in construction injury cases. Subcontractors with contractual authority over work methods and safety cannot escape liability under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) without clear proof they lacked control or complied with applicable safety codes. Moreover, contractual indemnification cannot be summarily enforced when the indemnitee’s negligence remains unresolved. This decision reaffirms the courts’ careful approach to allocating safety responsibilities and enforcing indemnity agreements in the complex web of modern construction projects.