¶1We dissent in part and would remand as well for a new trial on the issue of contractual indemnification on the cross claim of the . defendant, K. W. Construction Corp., against defendant, A & M Wallboard, Inc. The majority indicates that, because the plaintiff was on his lunch break and not at his work area, the third-party defendant-respondent, A & M Wallboard, Inc., could not be deemed responsible. However, it is well settled that an employee on his lunch break, in the general physical area of his employment, is still subject to the employment relationship. (Matter of Bollard v Engel, 278 NY 463[Per Curiam]; Matter of Domres v Syracuse Safe Co., 240 NY 611.)
85 A.D.2d 515
O'Connor v. Serge Elevator Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 3, 1981
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1981-12-03
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1989
2 district ·
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1981-12-03
View the full empirical analysis of this case →