In the case of A* S* v. Hudson ** LLC et al., the central issue revolves around a construction site injury and the complex web of liability among multiple contractors and subcontractors. The plaintiff, S*, alleged that he slipped on a five-inch piece of unattached BX electrical cable while using an interior staircase at the worksite. The defendants, Hudson ** LLC and Hudson ** LLC—respectively the property owner and general contractor (collectively Hudson)—brought third-party claims against various subcontractors, including H* Electric and Maintenance Corp., seeking indemnification and contribution.
H* Electric was named as a second third-party defendant, with Hudson asserting that it was the only trade on site that used BX cable, thereby implying responsibility for the hazardous condition. However, H* Electric moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not present at or near the site on the date of the accident or in the days immediately preceding it. The company supported its motion with testimony detailing its daily protocol for consolidating debris and emphasized that another subcontractor was responsible for cleaning the site.
The Supreme Court initially denied H* Electric's motion, but on appeal, the Appellate Division reversed that decision. The appellate court found that H* Electric had met its burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment. Its evidence was both specific and unrebutted: it had not been working in the vicinity of the accident, and it had followed proper cleanup procedures. Hudson’s opposition relied solely on the assertion that H* Electric was the only trade using BX cable—a claim deemed insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, especially in light of H* Electric’s detailed and uncontested submissions.
As a result, the court concluded that the claim for common-law indemnification and contribution against H* Electric should have been dismissed. The ruling underscores the importance of concrete evidence over speculative inference in multi-party construction litigation and affirms that liability cannot be imputed solely based on the type of materials a subcontractor typically uses.
Looks like H* Electric's liability got unplugged there ....
# # #
DECISION