The motion court also correctly denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment on plaintiffs Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. There are questions of fact concerning how the accident occurred, and whether there were adequate safety devices provided to plaintiff that he elected not to use. Insofar as defendant Stratis contends that despite being the general contractor, it exercised no supervision or control over plaintiffs work, there is, at the very least, at question of fact concerning whether Stratis was authorized to exercise such supervision or control. The broad language of the agreement between Stratis and the property owner authorized Stratis to supervise all work on the construction project at issue (see Walls v Turner Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 861, 863-864 [2005]).
The motion court properly denied that branch of Stockbridge’s motion seeking summary judgment on its cross claim against Stratis and its third-party claim against Sanita for contractual indemnification since Stockbridge did not establish, as a matter of law, that the plaintiffs accident resulted from “negligent acts or omissions” on the part of Stratis or Sanita, as required by the defense and indemnification clause of its contracts with
We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.