Bedson v The Clarett Group, LLC
2012 NY Slip Op 31007(U)
April 13, 2012
Sup Ct, New York County
Docket Number: 115400/08
Judge: Doris Ling-Cohan
Republished from New York State Unified Court
System's E-Courts Service.
Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for
any additional information on this case.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
[* 1]
SCANNED ON411712012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
---.-
-
NEW YORK COUNTY
I
-
-
-- - -- -â
-
-
1 15400/2008
INDEX NO.
MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO.
SEQUENCE NUMBER : 003
DISMISS
MOTION CAL. NO,
I
n this motion to/for
--
-- -- - -
- -- ~.
-
- --
-
PAPERS NUMBERED
Notice of Motion/ Order t o Show Cause
..
v)
Y
2
0
cn
a
Answering Affidavits
-
-
Affidavits
-
Exhibits
Exhibits
..
--
! - .2
3
-
_âI- q
/
Replying Affidavits
,, I
,
Cross-Motion:
c-1
r
5
No
Yes
NEW YOHK
C W N V CLERKâS OFFICE
Check one:
u FINAL DISPOSITION
Check if appropriate:
i NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
d
DO NOT POST
0 SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG.
L
J
REFERENCE
fl SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG.
[* 2]
SUPREME COURT OF âTHE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY O F NEW YORK : IAS PART 36
_ _ - _ - - - _ - - - - - _ _ _ - - _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _
X
âTHOMAS 5. HEDSON a n d C H R I S T I N E REDSON
I n d e x No. 115400/08
Plaintiffs,
Motion S e q .
- against -
003
THE CLARETT GROUP, L L C ,
2 0 0 WEA SUB C O . , L L C ,
BOVIS LEND L E A S E INC.,
200 WEST END AVENUE, CONDOMINIUM,
CARAN P R O P E K T I E S , INC - ,
CARAN P R O P E R T I E S , LLC, and
CARAN P R O P E R T I E S R E A L T Y , LLC. ,
Defendants.
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _
X
THE CLARETT G R O U P , LLC,
200 WEA SUB CO., LLC and
BOVIS LEND L E A S E LMR, INC.,
Third-party
%%L
Plai.nl:i.ffs,
- against S . J . E L E C T R I C LNC.,
NEW YOHK
WI-JdTYCLERKS OFFICE
HON. DORIS LING-COHAN, J.:
Defendants/third-party
(âClarettâ),
plai-ntiffs The C l a r e t t Group,
2 0 0 WEA S u b C o . ,
LLC
LLC
( â 2 0 0 WEAâ), a n d Bovis L e n d
Lease LMB, Inc. ( â B o v l i s â ) move, p u r s u a n t t o C P L R 3 2 1 2 ,
summary j u d g m e n t dismissing a l l c l a i m s against them.
for
The movants
also s e e k s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t on t h e i r claims f o r c o n t r a c t u a l
d e f e n s e and i n d e m n i t y against t h i r d - p a r t y defendant S.J. Electric
Inc.
(âS. . E l e c t r i c â )
J
.
[* 3]
BACKGROUND
P l a i n t i f f s , Thomas 3 . Bedson
Bedson
(âMr.
Bedsonâ) a n d C h r i s t i n e
(âMrs. B e d s o n â ) , h u s b a n d a n d w i f e ,
commenced t h i s a c t i o n
s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r damages a n d f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s r e s u l t i n g
from a n a c c i d e n t d u r i n g a c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t a t 2 0 0 West End
Avenue, N e w York, New York ( t h e â s u b j e c t p r e m i s e s â ) -
The
f o l l o w i n g f a c t s are g l e a n e d f r o m t h e subrnissri.on o f t h e p a r t i e s .
T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t e n t a i l e d t h e f o r m a t i o n of a 2 7 -
s t o r y r e s i d e n t - i a l condominium b u i l d i n g a t t h e s u b j e c t p r e m i s e s .
The p a r t i e s were p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e p r o j e c t .
Mr.
B e d s o n , an
e l e c t r i c i a n , was e m p l o y e d b y t h i r d - p a r t l y d e f e n d a n t S.J . E l e c t r i c ,
Inc. ( â S . J . E l e c t r i c â ) , a n e l e c t r i c a l s u b c o n t r a c t o r for t h e
c o n s t r u c t i o n project.
Z O O WEA owned t h e s u b j e c t p r e m i s e s .
C l a r e t t was t h e r e a l e s t a t e d e v e l o p e r f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
project.
B o v i s was (:he c o n s t r u c t i o n m a n a q e r .
I n c . , a l s o sued h e r e i n a s Caran P r o p e r t i e s ,
Properties Realty,
Caran P r o p e r t i e s ,
LLC. a n d Caran
LLC. (âCaranâ) was the p r o p e r t y m a n a g e r f o r
the subject premises.
2 0 0 West End Avenue Condominium
(âCondominiumâ) became t h e owner o f t h e common a r e a s a f t e r the
c o m p l e t i o n of the c o n s t r u c t i o n project.
P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t on J u l y 2 1 ,
a n d fell a s h e was d e s c e n d i n g a w e t ,
a t t h e subject premises.
2 0 0 8 , M r . Bedson s l i p p e d
s l i p p e r y i n t e r i . o r staircase
T h e s t a i r c a s e was regularly u s e d b y
workers on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t .
P r i o r t o t h e alleged
i n c i d e n t , Mr. Rcdsorl h a d b e e n a s s i g n e d t o perform a w a l k - t h r o u g h
of t h e p e n k h o u s e a p a r t m e n t s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r i t e m s o n a punch
2
[* 4]
list h a d been completed.
The main function of the walk-through
was to d e t e c l : s a f e k y hazards or1 the construction project arid
eliminate them.
Immediately b e f o r e the a13.eged incident, Gabriel Ruiz ( " M r .
Ruiz"), a maintenance w o r k e r for Caran at the subject premises,
had been mopping the staircase before stepping away to get fresh
water.
He did not witness the incident.
When he returned, he
saw Mr. Bedson on the floor at I l e bottom of t h e staircase.
lh
He
helped Mr. Bedson get up arid accompanied him to the 1,obby tu
report the incident
+
The Complaint alleges claims for negligence, violations of
Labor Law 5 5 200 and 242(6), violations of the Administrative
Code, and loss of consortium.
Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants were negligent in the ownership,
operation, and maintenance of the subject premises, a n d in
permitting the w o r k on the construct-ion project to be done in a
dangerous and unsafe manner.
Mrs. Redson also claims that she
has been deprived of the services of her husband as a r e s u l t . of
the alleged incident.
'The Rill of Particu1,ars c o n t a i n : ; similar allegations, and
states that Mr. Bedson sustained severe, permanent back i.njurlies.
Clarett, 200 WEA, and Eovis, answered, generally denying the
allegations in the Complaint, asserting several. affirmative
defenses, and alleging cross clai.ms against co-defendants for
Clarett, 200 WEA, and Bovis
contribution o r indemnification.
3
[* 5]
a l s o f i l e d a t h i r d - p a r t y complaint a g a i n s t S.J. E l e c t r i c ,
a l l e g i n g c l a i m s f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t and c o n t r a c t u a l indemnity.
Condominium a n d C a r a n a l s o a n s w e r e d , d e n y i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n s
i n t h e C o m p l a i n t , a s s e r t i n g var-i.ous a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s , and
c r o s s - c l a i m i n g a g a i n s t C l a r e t t , 2 0 0 WEA,
f - o r con1:ribut:ion
o r indemnificati.on.
Bovis, a n d S . J . E l e c t r i c
S . J . E l e c t r i c f i l e d an
a n s w e r t o t h e t - h i r d - p a r t y Complaint., d e n y i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n s
t h e r e i n a n d a s s e r t i n g several a f ⬠i r m n t i v e d e r e n s e s .
C l a r e t t , 2 0 0 WEA, a n d B o v i s now s e e k summar-y j u d g m e n t
d i s m i s s i n q a l l c l a i m s a g a i n s t them a n d a w a r d i n g t h e m c o n t r a c t u a l
d e f e n s e and indemniliy a g a i n s t S . 3. E l e c t r i c .
DISCUSSION
I t i s w e l l . s e t t l e d t h a t t h e p r o p o n e n t o f a summary j u d g m e n t
m o t i o n m u s t makc a p r i m a f a c i . e s h o w i n g o f e n t i t l e m e n t t o judgment.
a s a matrer o f l a w ,
tendering s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o demonstrate
t h e a b s e n c e of a n y m a t e r i a l i s s u e s of f a c t
( s e e Wiriegrad v N e w
York U n i v . bled. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [ 1 . 9 8 5 1 ; Zuckerman v City
of N e w Ynrk, 49 N Y 2 d 5.57, 5 6 2 [1980])
+
Once t h i s s h o w i n g h a s
b e e n made, t h e b u r d e n s h i f t s t o t h e p a r t y o p p o s i n g t h e m o t i o n f o r
summary judgment: t o p r o d u c e c v i d e n L i a r y p r o o f i n a d m i s s i b l e f o r m
s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t - a b l i s h the e x i s t e n c e o f m a t e r i a l i s s u e s o f f a c t
w h i c h r e q u i r e a t r i a l of t h e a c t i o n ( Z u c k e r m a n v C i , t y of N e w
Y o r k , 49 NY2d a t 5 6 2 ) .
Mere c o n c l u s i o n s , e x p r e s s i o n s o f h o p e , or
u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d a l l e y a t i o n s or a s s e r t i o n s a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o
d e f e a t summary j u d g m e n t
(id. .
)
4
[* 6]
As stated,
t h e Complai.nt alleycs c a u s e s o f a c t i o n for common
l a w n e g l i g e n c e , v i o l a t i o n o f I d x r law 5 5 2 0 0 a n d 2 4 1 (6), a s wel.1
as a p p l i c a b l e s e c t i o n s of t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code o f t h e C i t y o f
New York ( â A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o d e â ) , arid l o s s o f c o n s o r t i u m .
Common law negligence and v i o l a t i o n of L a b o r Law S200
Where,
a s h e r e , a c a s e i n v o l v e s a l l e g e d l y dancjerous
c o n d i t i o n s on t h e p r e m i s e s , a p a r t y may be l i a b l e i n common l a w
n e g l i g e n c e a n d u n d e r L a b o r Law §200 i f t h e p a r t y h a s c o n t r o l over
t h e w o r k s i t e a n d h a s actual or c o n s t r u c t i v e n o t i c e o f t h e
dangerous c o n d i t i o n
654,
( W y n n e v B . A n t h o n y C o n s t r . C o r p . , 53 AD3d
6 5 6 [ad Dept 20081).
I n s e e k i n g summary j u d g m e n t ,
t h e movinq d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d
t h a t t h e y d i d n o t h a v e a n y c o n t r o l o v e r t h e s t a i r c a s e on whi-ch
Mr. Bedson r e p o r t e d l y s l i p p e d a n d f e l l . , and d i d n o t h a v e n o t i c e
of t h e a l l e g e d d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n .
t h e moving d e f e n d a n t s o f f e r ,
depositions of M r .
i n t e r alia, t r a n s c r i p t s f r o m the
Bedson, M r .
R u i z , a m a i n t e n a n c e worker for
Caran, a n d C h a r l o t t e S k u r g i s ( â M s .
manager f o r Bovi:;.
T o support t h e i r p o s i t i o n ,
Sturgisâ),
~3
senior project
D e f e n d a n t s a l s o submit an a f f i d a v i t from M s .
S t u r g i s s t a t i n g t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t work on t h e common
areas, i r i c l u d i ng t h e s t a i r c a s e s i n t h e s u b j e c t p r e m i s e s , had b e e n
c o m p l e t e d a n d t-hese areas were t u r n e d o v e r t o Condominium a n d
C a r a n m o n t h s before t . h e a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t ( S t u r g j - s A f f,
P l a i n t i f f s â A f f i n Opp, ¶6).
A t a d e p o s i - t i o n h e l d on November 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 , Mr. Bedson
t e s t i f i e d that o n t h e d a t e o f the alleged i n c i d e n t , h e h a d b e e n
5
[* 7]
a s s i g n e d t o walk t h r o u g h t h e p e n t h o u s e f l o o r s of the s u b j e c t
premises,
i n c l u d i . n g t h e a p a r t m e n t s and h a l l w a y , a n d make a punch
l i s t o f a l l u n f i n i s h e d e l e c t r i c a l work (Bedson D e p o s i t i o n
T r a n s c r i p t , Not.
of M o t ,
Exh E ,
p- 19).
Upon l e a v i n g one
a p a r t m e n t , on h i s way t o i n s p e c t a n o c h e r , h e a p p r o a c h e d t h e
s t a i r c a s e a n d l o o k e d down t o make s u r e t h a t h i s p a t h was c l e a r
b e f o r e d e s c e n d i n g (id. a t 3 7 - 3 8 ) .
Mr.
Benson f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t .
h e h e l d on t o t h e h a n d r a i l t o h i s r i g h t s i d e a s h e d e s c e n d e d t h e
staircase, b u t nonetheless,
s l i p p e d o n a w e t s u b s t a n c e a n d fell
t o t h e b o t t o m o f t h e s t a i r s (id. a t 3 9 ) , l a n d i n g on h i s l o w e r
b a c k and b u t t
(id. at 4 0 ) .
H e also s t . a t e d t h a t h e y e l l e d f o r
h e l p a n d Mr. Ruiz came t o h i s a i d e ( i d . a t 4 7 ) .
stated that Mr.
Mr.
Benson
R u i z apologized Lo h i m , e x p l a i n i n g t h a t h e h a d
j u s t p o u r e d w a t e r down t h e s t e p s t o mop t h e m (id. a t 4 7 - 4 9 ) .
R u i z then h e l p e d M r .
Mr.
Benson y e t u p , a s s i s t e d h i m o n t o t h e
e l e v a t o r , and a c c o m p a n i e d him t o t h e l o b b y t o r e p o r t t h e i n c i d e n t
(id. a t 5 0 ) .
At
a d e p o s i t i o n h e l d on December 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 , M r .
Ruiz
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he p e r f o r m e d m a i n t e n a n c e work f o r C a r a n a t t h e
s u b j e c t p r e m i s e s f o r more t h a n t h r e e y e a r s b e f o r e t h e a l l e g e d
incident
(Ruiz D e p o s i . t i n n T r a n s c r i p t , Not o f M o t ,
Exh F, p .
10).
H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s maintenance d u t i e s i n c l u d e d c l e a n i n g
t h e l o b b i e s and s t a i r c a s e s i n the common a r e a s
(id. a t 1 3 - 1 5 ) -
H e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t h e u s u a l l y mopped the s t a i r c a s e s
approximately every t w o weeks,
and on t h e d a t e of
t-he a l l e y e d
[* 8]
i n c i d e n t , he h a d b e e n mopping t h e s L a i r c a s e on w h i c h MI-. Bedson
r e p o r t e d l y s l i p p e d a n d fcll (id. at 1 8 , 2 0 ) .
Mr.
Ruiz testified:
I was w o r k i n g f r o m t h e 25'.t' o n t h e way t o t h e
24t.t' f l o o r . . . . I g r a b b e d a b u c k e t a n d a
mop o f w a t e r , c l e a n w a t e r , o n l y c l e a n w a t e r .
I . - . go a l l t h e way t o the p e n t , h o u s e , s t a r t
my way down.
E v e r y two o r t h r e e f l o o r s y o
g e t more c l e a n water.
Come on u p arid - no
soap or n o t h i n g j u s t mop on t h e s t a i r s a n d
when I g o t t o t h e 2 1 , ' l o o r , I w e n t
/ ' 'f
d o w n s t a i r s a g a i n t o g e t more c l e a n water, a n d
when I came up he was on t h e f l o o r [ . ] I
d i d n ' t see n o t h i n g .
I on1.y s e e he was on the
f l o o r , a n d I h e l p him o u t t o g e t u p .
(id. a t 1 8 - 1 9 ) .
Mr.
R u i z s t a t e d t h a t h e did riot t e l l a n y o n e t h a t .
h e was g o i n g t o mop t h e staircase, a n d d i d n o t p u t up a n y c o n e s
or w a r n i n g signs b e f o r e h e s t a r t e d mopping t h e s t a i r c a s e (id. a t
22-23).
At a d e p o s i t i o n h e l d o n July 7 , 2 0 1 0 , M s .
Sturgis testified,
i n e s s e n c e , t h a t on t h e d a t e o f t h e a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t , C l a r e t t ,
C a r a n , and B o v i s were i n v o l v e d w i t h p u n c h l i s t : work t h a t was
b e i n g p e r f o r m e d on two o f t h e p e n t h o u s e a p a r t m e n t s t h a t h a d n o t
y e t b e e n t u r n e d o v e r t o Condominium ( S t u r g i s D e p o s i t i o n
T r a n s c r i p t , Not of- Mot, Exh G, p . 6 0 ,
64-65).
She acknowledged
t h a t M r . Bedson was p e r f o r m i n g punch l i s t w o r k i n t h e l l w o
p e n t h o u s e a p a r t m e n t s when t h e a l . l c q e d i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d (id. a t
173).
Ms.
S t u r g i s was r e s p o n s i b l e for f i l l i n g o u t r e p o r t s of t h e
a l l e g e d i n c i d e r i t (id. a t 9 0 ) .
She f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t s h e
c o m p l e t e d the i n c i d e n t r e p o r t
(id. a t 9 1 - 9 3 ) a n d c o n d u c t e d an
i n v e s t i g a t i o n (id. a t 1 0 8 - 1 0 9 )
.
The i n c i d e n t s t a t e d , i n p a r t :
7
[* 9]
Tommy s l i p p e d down a w e t s t a i - r c a s e g o i n g f r o m
P e n t h o u s e B (25tââ f l o o r ) to P e n t h o u s e A ( 2 4 t h
floor). Tommy s l i p p e d on t h e t h i r d s t a i r a n d
t h e n s l i d down t h e r e s t o f t h e s t a i r c a s e
i n j u r i n g h i s back.
f-Ic i n j u r e d h i s w r i s t
w h i l e t r y i n g t o break h i s f a l l .
Thc s t a i r s
h a d b e e n w e t wi.t.h w a t e r o u t o f a b u c k e t a n d
l e f t to d r y b y t h e 2 0 0 WEA Condo B u i l d i n g
No âWet F l o o r â s i g n s had
Maintenance s t a f f .
b e e n p o s t e d at. e i t h e r f l o o r by t h e b u i l d i n g
staff
(Incident Report,
P l a i n t i f f â s Aff I n Opp, Exh E ) .
The A c c i d e n t
R e p o r t , w h i c h was c o m p l e t e d b y S.J. E l e c t r i c â s f o r e m a n , s t a t e s ,
i n part, that â[Mr.
R c d s o n ] was w a l k i n g down t h e s t a i r s a n d f e l l .
The s t a i r s were w e t f r o m t h e c l e a n i n g crewâ ( A c c i d e n t R e p o r t ,
P l a i n t i f f â s Aft i n Opp, Exh F).
I n o p p o s i t i o n t o the summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , p l a i n t i f f s
argue t h a t d e f e n d a n t s v i o l a t e d Labor Law §200 by c r e a t i n g o r
p e r m i t t i n g a s l i p a n d f a l l hazard o n t h e s t a i r c a s e d u r i n g t h e
construction project.
P l a i n t i f f s a l s o assert t h a t t h e moving
d e f e n d a n t s h a d c o n t r o l o v e r t h e common areas w h e r e t h e a l l e g e d
incident occurred.
P l a i n t i f f s also r e l y . on M s .
support t h e i r positi-on.
Sturgisâ deposition testimony t o
They a l s o s u b m i t t r a n s c r i p t s f r o m t h e
d e p o s i t i o n s of H a r r y J u p i t e r
(âMr. J u p i t e r â ) , E x e c u t i v e V i c e
P r e s i d e n t o f C l - a r e t t ; A n t h o n y Delarlo Wesley (âMr. W e s l e y â ) I
w a s employed by Caran as t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f 2 0 0 WEA;
who
and J e f f
McKenna, a n e m p l o y e e o f S.J . E l e c t r - i . c , who s e r v e d a s t h e g e n e r a l
f o r e m a n for t h e c o n s t c u c t j . o n p r o j e c t .
8
[* 10]
Mr.
J u p i t e r t e s t i f i e d , i n e s s e n c e , t h a t U o v i s was
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n s u r i n g t h e s a f e t y o f t h e w o r k e r s on t h e
construction project
( J u p i t e r Deposition T r a n s c r i p t , P l a i n t i f f s â
Aff i n Opp, Exh A, p . 41).
t h e p u r p o s e of
Mr.
Wesley t e s t i f i e d , i n p a r t , t h a t
\ \ w e t f l o o r c a u t i o n signâ i s to a l e r t a n y o n e i.n t h e
a r e a t h a t t h e f l o o r nii-ght be damp, arid t h a t s u c h s i q n s a r e
r e q u i r e d a s a s a f e t y p r e c a u t i o n t o p r e v e n t a c c i d e n t s (Wesley
Deposition T r a n s c r i p t ,
P l a i n t i f f s â Aff i n Opp, Exh 13, p . 34).
O n r e v i e w of t h e s u b m i s s i o n s , t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e
moving d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h e n t i t l e m e n t Lo j u d g m e n t
d i s m i s s i n g t h e commori law n e g l i g e n c e and Labor L a w 5200 claims
a g a i n s t them.
The s u b m i s s i o n s b y p l a i n t i f f s a n d e a c h of t h e
moving d e f e n d a n t s were c o n t r a d i c t o r y on w h i c h e n t i t z y h a d c o n t r o l
of t h e s t a i r c a s e on t h e d a t e 0:
1
t h e al-leged i n c i d e n t .
Thus, t h e
s u b m i s s i o n s r e v e a l t r i a b l e i s s u e s o f f a c t a s t.o w h e t h e r t h e
moving d e f e n d a n t s h a d c o n t r o l o v e r t h e work s i t e a n d h a d n o t i c e
o f t h e d a n g e r o u s c o n d i t i o n s o a s t o d e f e a t summary j u d g m e n t .
The
r e q u e s t for sununary j u d g m e n t d i s r n i s s j - n g t h e c l a i m s f o r common law
n e g l i g e n c e a n d v i o l a t i o n o f T,abor Law 5 2 0 0 m u s k be d e n i e d .
Violation of L a b o r Law §241(6) and the Administrative Code
The r e q u e s t for summary j u d g m e n t d i s m i s s i n g t h e c l a i m s f o r
v i o l a t i o n o f L a b o r law 5241(6) a n d t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Code m u s t
also be d e n i e d .
Labor Law 5 241(6) i m p o s e s a n o n - d e l e g a b l e d u t y
upon o w n e r s e n g a g e d i n c o n s t - r u c t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n m a n a g e r s ,
general contractors,
and t h e i r a g e n t s t o p r o v i d e r e a s o n a b l e a n d
9
[* 11]
adequate p r o t e c t i o n a n d s a f e t y t o the persons employed t h e r e i n
( s e e Ross v C u r t i s - P a l m e r H y d r o - E l e c .
Co.,
81 NY2d 4 9 4 , 5 0 1 - 5 0 2
[1993]). T o p r e v a i l on a c a u s e o f a c t i o n a s s e r t e d u n d e r L a b o r
Law
§
241(6), p l a i n t i f f s m u s t s e t f o r t h a v i o l a t i o n o f a s p e c i f i c
r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n p r o m u l g a t e d by t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r o f t h e
D e p a r t m e n t o f L a b o r ( s e e id.).
Here, p l a i n t i f f s alleyc t h a t d e f e n d a n t s v i o l a t e d v a r i o u s
s e c t i o n s of R u l e 2 3 o f t h e I n d u s t r i a l Code, i n c l u d i . n g S23-1.. ( d ) ,
7
which s t a t e s :
Employers s h a l l n o t s u f f e r o r p e r m i t a n y
e m p l o y e e t o u s e a f l u o r , p a s s a g e w a y , walkway,
scafâ¬old, p l a t f o r m o r other e l e v a t e d w o r k i n g
s u r f a c e which i s i n a s l j - p p e r y c o n d i t i o n .
I c e , snow, w a t e r , grease and any o t h e r
f o r e i g n s u b s t a n c e which may c a u s e s l i p p e r y
f o o t i n g s h a l l be removed, s a n d e d o r c o v e r e d
t o p r o v i d e s a f e foeti-ng
( 1 2 NYCRR 2 3 - 1 . 7 [ d ] )
.
S e c t i o n 2 3 - 1 . 7 ( d ) r e q u i r e s t h a t a l l work
areas be f'recr! f r o m slipping h a z a r d s ( i d . ) a n d c a u s e s of a c t i o n
,
i n v o k i n g t h a t s t a t u t e m u s t be b a s e d upon v i o l a t i o n s o f s p e c i f i c
codes, r u l e s , o r r e g u l a t i o n s a p p 1 , i c a b l e t o t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of
the accident
(Ross v C u r t i s - P a l m e r Hydro-Elec. Co. , 8 1 NY2d 4 9 4 ) .
C o n t r a r y t o d e f e n d a n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n , 523-1.7 ( d ) c o n t a i n s
s p e c i f i c d i r e c t - i v e s t h a t a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a cause of
action under L a b o r L a w §241 ( 6 ) (Col.ucci v E q u i t a b l e Life
A s s u r a n c e S o r i - e t y of the U m i t e d States e t a]., 210 A D 2 d 5 1 3 , 5165 1 7 [lst Dept 19951).
M o r e o v e r , a t [:he v e r y l e a s t ,
s u b m i s s i o n s r a i s e t r i a b l e issue:;
the
of f a c t a s t o w h e t h e r t h e
s t a i r c a s e w h e r e t h e a l l e g e d i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d was a p a s s a g e w a y t o
10
[* 12]
t h e work s i t e s o a s t o d e f e a t summary j u d g m e n t
(see W h a l e n v City
of New Y o r k , 2 7 0 Ad2d 3 4 0 , 3 4 2 [2d Dept 20001) -
Request for C o n t r a c t u a l Defense and Indemnity
The moving d e f e n d a n t s a l s o s e e k c o n t r a c t u a l defense a n d
i n d e m n i t y from S.J . E l e c t r i c b a s e d on t h e g e n e r a l i n d e m n i t y
clause i n article 1 2 of t h e E l e c t r i . c a 1 S u b c o n t r a c t among B o v i s ,
a s c o n t r a c t o r , 200 WEA, a s owner, C l a r e t t ,
Electric as subcontractor.
a s a g e n t , and S . J .
The e n f o r c e a b i l i t y of t h e c o n t r a c t u a l
d e f e n s e p r o v i s i o n c a n n o t be d i s p u t e d (see B r o w n v Two E x c h a n g e
P l a z a P a r t n e r s , 76 N Y 2 d 172, 1 7 8 [1990])-
The p r o v i s i o n c l e a r l y
e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t S.J. E l e c t r i c i s o b l i g a t e d to d e E e n d t h e moving
defendants a g a i n s t p l a i n t i f f s â claims.
that plaintiffsâ
?âhe c o n c l u s o r y a s s e r t i o n
c l a i m s d i d n o t a r i s e o u t o f S.J. E l e c t r i c â s work
u n d e r t h e s u b c o n t - r a c t i s s i m p l y i n s u f f i . c i e n t t o defeat summary
judgment.
T h u s , t h e moving d e f e n d a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o judymer-it
o b l i g a t i n g S.J. E l e c t r i c : t o d e f e n d them a g a i n s t i t s c l a i m s .
However, General O b l i g a t i o n s T,aw
§
5-322.1 p r o h i b i t s a p a r t y
f r o m b e i n g i n d e m n i f i e d f o r i t s own active f a u l t .
The e x i s t e n c e
o f g e n u i n e i s s u e s of f a c t r e q a r d i n y d e f e n d a n t s â n e g l i g e n c e
p r e c l u d e s summary j u d g m e n t on t h e i r c l a i m f o r c o n t r a c t u a l
i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n (see Z e i g l e r - B o n d s v Structure Tone, Inc., 245
A D 2 d 80 [ l Y Dept 1 9 9 7 1 ) .
t
Shou.ld, however,
i t be d e t e r m i n e d t h a t
t h e m o v i n g d e f e n d a n t s are f r e e Erom n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e c a u s i n g of
p l a i n t - i ffâ s a c c j d e n t , t h e m o v i n g d e f e n d a n t s would be e n t i t l e d t o
11
[* 13]
contractual indemnification f r o m S.J. Electric, based upon the
g e n e r a l indemnity clause in article 12 of the Electrical
Subcontrac:t.
Thus, that portion of the moving defendants' motion
which seeks contractual indemnification from S . J . Electrric, is
granted, cQnditionally, upon a finding of no negligence on the
part of moving defendants.
Accordingly it is
ORDERED t h a t the motion for summary judgment is granted to
the extent that it is
O R D E R E D that third-party defendant S . J . Electric I n c .
is
obligated to provide a defense for defendants The Claret Group,
LLC., 200 WEA SUR Co., LLC, and Rovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. in
this action and indemnification, provided that there is a
determination that defendants were not negligent in the causing
of plaintiff's accident, and it is otherwise denied; and it: is
further
ORDERED that within 30 days of entry of this order,
plaintiff shall serve a copy u p o n all parties, with notice of
entry.
I
I
f
J:\Summary J u d g m e n t \ B e d s o r l v Clarctt G r o u p
12
-
SJ,
7A>
indemnity.wpd
