Defendants did not, in response to plaintiff's prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment upon his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue. The hearsay adduced in opposition to the motion did not suffice as a ground for the motion's denial ( see Candela v. City of New York, 8 AD3d 45).
Plaintiff's common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims as against the Pavarini defendants should, however, have been dismissed since the evidence demonstrated that those defendants did not have sufficient authority or control over the injury-producing work to avoid or correct the hazard at issue ( see O'Sullivan v. IDI Constr. Co., Inc., 28 AD3d 225; Vasiliades v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 3 AD3d 400).
Inasmuch as the contract between Vornado, the owner, and Pavarini, the contractor manager, plainly requires Pavarini to indemnify Vornado for all claims arising out of the performance of the contract work, including those resulting from a negligent act or omission of a subcontractor, and the demolition work plaintiff was performing for his employer, a subcontractor, clearly constituted work under the contract, and inasmuch as Vornado's liability was shown to be purely statutory, Vornado was entitled to a conditional grant of judgment upon its cross claim for contractual indemnification from Pavarini ( see Drzewinski v. Atlantic Scaffold Ladder Co., 70 NY2d 774, 777, citing Margolin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 32 NY2d 149, 153).