Statutory Defendant Liability and Contractual Indemnity Under Labor Law §240(1)

Introduction

In Hartrum v. Montefiore Hospital Housing Section II Inc. (2025 NYSlipOp 02008), the Appellate Division, First Department, addressed two core issues under New York’s Labor Law and contract indemnity doctrine:

The scope of who qualifies as a “proper” statutory defendant under Labor Law §240(1) in a rooftop hoisting accident;
The enforceability and triggers of contractual indemnity obligations among a property owner, a manager/sublessee, a general contractor, a subcontractor, and an equipment-owner subtenant.

Plaintiff Kyle Hartrum, an employee of third-party defendant Electronic Service Solutions, Inc. (ESS), was injured when a large sheet-metal panel being hand-hoisted from a rooftop bulkhead swung uncontrollably. Hartrum sued the building owner (Montefiore Hospital Housing Section II Inc. and Montefiore Medical Center), the lessee and site manager (SBA Site Management, LLC), the equipment subtenant (Flo TV Inc. and Mediaflo USA, Inc.), and the general contractor (KMB Design Group LLC). The court’s decision clarifies statutory liability under Labor Law §240(1) and delineates contractual indemnity rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously modified the trial court’s rulings as follows:

Labor Law §240(1): Plaintiff was granted summary judgment against defendants Monte Housing, SBA, Flo, and KMB, finding each a proper statutory defendant.
Labor Law §200 and Common-Law Negligence: All defendants were granted dismissal of these claims.
Contractual Indemnity:
- Monte Housing/Montefiore Medical Center are entitled to indemnity from SBA;
- Monte Housing is entitled to indemnity from Flo;
- SBA is entitled to indemnity from Flo;
- Flo and KMB are entitled to conditional indemnity (pending apportionment of fault) from KMB and ESS respectively.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc. (13 NY3d 599 [2009]) – Confirms the broad, non-delegable duty of contractors and owners to provide proper safety devices under §240(1).
Kempisty v. 246 Spring St., LLC (92 AD3d 474 [1st Dept 2012]) and Ray v. City of New York (62 AD3d 591 [1st Dept 2009]) – Emphasize strict liability for elevation-related hazards, even where no mechanical hoisting device is used.
Garcia v. 122-130 E. 23rd St. LLC (220 AD3d 463 [1st Dept 2023]) and Medrano v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (154 AD3d 521 [1st Dept 2017]) – Address admissibility of hearsay accident-investigation testimony on summary judgment.
Crespo v. Triad, Inc. (294 AD2d 145 [1st Dept 2002]) and Imling v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (289 AD2d 104 [1st Dept 2001]) – Define “statutory defendant” under §240(1), focusing on control and supervisory obligations over the worksite.
Suconota v. Knickerbocker Props., LLC (116 AD3d 508 [1st Dept 2014]) – Explains separation of §200/common-law negligence claims when no supervisory control is shown beyond the subcontractor foreman.
Quiroz v. New York Presbyt./Columbia Univ. Med. Ctr. (202 AD3d 555 [1st Dept 2022]) – Illustrates conditional indemnity when fault apportionment remains to be decided by a jury.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s decision rests on two pillars:

Labor Law §240(1) Strict Liability: Section 240(1) imposes non-delegable duties on owners and contractors (and those in control of the worksite) to provide adequate safety devices and safeguards when work involves elevation-related risks. The court held:
- Hartrum’s accident arose from a protected elevation hazard (hoisting without tag lines).
- Even absent a mechanical device, improper rigging falls within §240(1).
- Flo’s hearsay objections failed; eyewitness testimony from Hartrum’s foreman sufficed for summary judgment.
- SBA, though a sublessee/out-of-possession lessor, retained binding control and supervisory obligations: its lease mandated safe equipment installation and maintenance, its manager coordinated the project, and it remained first contact for KMB.
Dismissal of §200 and Common-Law Negligence: Claims under §200 (general duty to maintain a safe worksite) and common-law negligence require proof of supervisory control beyond the subcontractor foreman. Here, ESS’s foreman exclusively planned and supervised the hoisting. No other defendant exercised direction or control over means and methods, warranting dismissal.
Contractual Indemnity: The Court parsed contractual language in three layers:
- Owner-Lessor (Monte Housing) vs. Site Manager (SBA): Lease indemnity triggered by claims “arising out of the use and occupancy” by the lessee/subtenants.
- Site Manager (SBA) vs. Equipment Subtenant (Flo): Sublease indemnity covers removal of equipment causing injury.
- Flo vs. KMB and KMB vs. ESS: Mutual indemnity clauses activate on negligence or strict liability of the other party’s subcontractor; conditional indemnity is appropriate when liability apportionment remains undetermined by factfinder.

Impact

This decision has significant implications for construction and property-management practice in New York:

Reinforces broad application of §240(1) to all elevation hazards, including hand-hoisting operations.
Clarifies that leasing and subleasing parties who retain contractual obligations over equipment safety cannot evade §240(1) liability by claiming “out-of-possession” status.
Demonstrates the importance of clear indemnity provisions and the interplay between indemnity and fault apportionment—particularly where strict liability and negligence overlap.
Alerts owners, managers, contractors, and subcontractors to the need for explicit supervision and safety protocols or risk summary judgment against them.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Statutory Defendant (Labor Law §240(1)): An entity that owns, leases, occupies, or controls the worksite and/or work methods, and thus shares non-delegable liability for elevation hazards.
Means and Methods: The manner in which work is performed (e.g., rigging, hoisting). Liability under §200/common-law arises only if a defendant directs or controls these methods.
Contractual Indemnity: A private agreement where one party promises to reimburse or defend another against certain claims, often triggered by negligence or liability arising under specified circumstances.
Conditional Indemnity: An indemnity obligation that hinges on a later determination of fault or liability by a trier of fact.

Conclusion

Hartrum v. Montefiore Hosp. Hous. §II Inc. solidifies two key legal principles: first, the broad reach of New York Labor Law §240(1) to all entities in control of elevation-related operations, including sublessees with contractual safety obligations; second, the enforceability of layered contractual indemnity provisions, subject to apportionment of fault. Owners, managers, contractors, and subcontractors must heed both statutory non-delegable duties and carefully drafted indemnity clauses when planning and supervising work at heights. This decision will guide future litigants, risk managers, and contract drafters in delineating responsibility and allocating risk on construction and equipment-removal projects.

Statutory Defendant Liability and Contractual Indemnity Under Labor Law §240(1): Hartrum v. Montefiore Hosp. Hous. § II Inc.