The motion court properly determined that plaintiff construction worker was not a recalcitrant worker for failing to wear a hard hat at the time a piece of metal fell from above and struck him in the head. A hard hat is not the type of safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to be constructed, placed and operated, so as to give proper protection from extraordinary elevation-related risks to a construction worker (see, Rosa v. R.H. Macy Co., Inc., 272 A.D.2d 87).
The motion court also correctly held that defendant/third-party plaintiff owner was entitled to contractual indemnification from third-party defendant contractor since it was clear, as a matter of law, that third-party plaintiff did not supervise or control third-party defendant's workers or the manner and method of the third-party defendant's work and there was no causal nexus between plaintiff's accident and any negligence on the part of third-party plaintiff (see,Mangano v. Am. Stock Exchange, Inc., 234 A.D.2d 198, 199).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.