Bedson v The Clarett Group, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 - - -- - -- - - - 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 - _ I- q / Replying Affidavits ,, I , Cross-Motion: c-1 r 5 No Yes NEW YOHK C W N V CLERK S 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 THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY O F NEW YORK : IAS PART 36 _ _ - _ - - - _ - - - - - _ _ _ - - _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X THOMAS 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 ( Clarett ), plai-ntiffs The C l a r e t t Group, 2 0 0 WEA S u b C o . , LLC LLC ( 2 0 0 WEA ), a n d Bovis L e n d Lease LMB, Inc. ( B o v l i s ) 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. ( S. . E l e c t r i c ) J . [* 3] BACKGROUND P l a i n t i f f s , Thomas 3 . Bedson Bedson ( Mr. Bedson ) a n d C h r i s t i n e ( Mrs. B e d s o n ) , 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 s u b j e c t p r e m i s e s ) - 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. ( S . J . E l e c t r i c ) , 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. ( Caran ) 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 ( Condominium ) 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 ( A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o d e ) , 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 ( M s . manager f o r Bovi:;. T o support t h e i r p o s i t i o n , Sturgis ), ~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 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 (25t 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 Wet F l o o r 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 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 s f o r e m a n , s t a t e s , i n part, that [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 crew ( A c c i d e n t R e p o r t , P l a i n t i f f 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. Sturgis 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 ( Mr. J u p i t e r ) , 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 ( Mr. W e s l e y ) 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 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 sign 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 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, scaf ¬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 claims. that plaintiffs ? he 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 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 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 ff 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.