Bonaerge v Leighton House Condominium

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Bonaerge v Leighton House Condominium 2014 NY Slip Op 32095(U) July 10, 2014 Sup Ct, Bronx County Docket Number: 83726/2010 Judge: Lucindo Suarez Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk I SU REME CdURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CO TY OF $RONX: I.AS. PART 19 ---- -------------1-------------------------------------------------X L ARES BdNAERGE, DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Index No. 306511/2009 I I - ~OUSE against - L IGHTON CONDOMINIUM, COOPER S UARE RE~! LTY INC., 1695 FIRST AVENUE A SOCIATE , LP, TOWER BUILDING SERVICES C., and IN EGRATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES C., Defendants. I I I ---- -------------1-------------------------------------------------X TEGRATEP CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, I I i - Third-Party Index No. 83726/2010 against - R CKLEDGt SCAFFOLD CORP., Third-Party Defendant. ---- ------------- -------------------------------------------------X PR SENT: Ho . Lucinda Suarez Upon the notice of motion dated December 31, 2013 of defendant/third-party plaintiff Integrated Co struction Strvices Inc. and the affirmation, affidavit, exhibits and memorandum of law submitted I in upport therfof; the affirmation in opposition dated February 24, 2014 of third-party defendant Ro kledge Scatfold Corp. and the exhibits annexed thereto; the reply affirmation dated March 5, 2014 i of efendant/thi~d-party plaintiff Integrated Construction Services Inc.; the notice of cross-motion dated I Jan ary 31, 20 ~ 4 of third-party defendant Rockledge Scaffold Corp. and the affirmation and exhibits I sub itted in su pmi thereof; the affirmation in opposition and reply affirmation dated June 13, 2014 [* 2] FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk I oft ird-party d~fendant Rockledge Scaffold Corp. and the affidavits and exhibits annexed thereto; the ! I not ce of cross,motion dated April 7, 2014 of defendants Leighton House Condominium and Cooper Sqt are Realty, ~nc. s/h/a Cooper Square Realty Inc. and the affirmation, exhibits and memorandum of I la submitted ~n support thereof; plaintiff's affirmation in opposition dated May 23, 2014 and the I ex ibits annexfd thereto; the affirmation in partial opposition dated June 13, 2014 of third-party defi ndant Roc~ledge Scaffold Corp.; the reply affirmation dated June 25, 2014 of defendants Leighton I se Condo1inium and Cooper Square Realty, Inc. s/h/a Cooper Square Realty Inc.; plaintiff's notice I of ross-motiot dated April 8, 2014 and the affirmation, affidavits and exhibits submitted in support the eof; the affifmation in opposition dated June 13, 2014 of defendants Leighton House Condominium I an Cooper Sqiare Realty, Inc. s/h/a Cooper Square Realty Inc.; plaintiff's reply affirmation dated June 24, 2014 and t1e exhibits annexed thereto; and due deliberation; the court finds: Plaintift, an employee of third-party defendant Rockledge Scaffold Corp. ("Rockledge"), co menced thils Labor Law action to recover damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a I hea er beam wrile dismantling a sidewalk bridge. The accident occurred on October 3, 2005 at 356 Ea t 88th Stree1 owned Leighton House Condominium ("Leighton"). 1 Defendant Cooper Square Realty, I Inc s/h/a Coopf r Square Realty Inc. ("Cooper") managed the premises pursuant to an agreement with Lei hton. Lelghton hired defendant/third-party plaintiff Integrated Construction Services Inc. I ("I tegrated") ~o perform exterior masonry work, and Integrated retained Rockledge to provide the I sid walk bridgt. Integrated now moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment on its third1 par y complaint seeking contractual indemnification against Rockledge. Rockledge cross-moves for I su mary jud,ment dismissing plaintitrs complaint and all third-party claims against it. 1 I 1 The tjroject documents identify the location as 360 East 88th Street in New York County. 2 Plain iff did not assert any direct claims against Rockledge. 2 [* 3] FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk I I Lei hton/Coop~r cross-move for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint and all cross1 cla"ms asserte4 against them and for summary judgment on their contractual and common-law I ind mnificatior claims against Integrated. Plaintiff cross-moves for partial summary judgment against Lei hton, Coo~er and Integrated on his Labor Law § 240( 1) cause of action and for an order pursuant to PLR 3025 ~ranting him leave to amend his verified bill of particulars to assert 12 NYC RR§ 231 5 .1 h) as a pre1icate for his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. The action against defendant Tower Bu"lding Serviies Inc. was discontinued by stipulation filed April 13, 2011, and plaintiff has obtained I ad fault judglent against defendant 1695 First Avenue Associates, LP. Submitted on the motion and cro s-motions re the pleadings, deposition transcripts, and the agreements between Leighton/Cooper, Lei hton/Integ ated, and Integrated/Rockledge. Plaintiff also offers an affidavit from his expert, Ce ified Site afety Manager Kathleen Hopkins ("Hopkins"), and an affidavit from co-worker I Fra cisco Nuntz. Rockledge in reply offers an affidavit from John Harrington ("Harrington") and ex ert Henry ~aughton, P.E. Rockledge's expert affidavit will not be considered. See Scott v. We 'tmore Fuezlca., Inc., 96 A.D.3d 520, 947 N.Y.S.2d 15 (lst Dep't2012) Rockledge did not disclose I its xpert until i~s reply, and the affidavit lacks a certificate of conformity as required by CPLR 2309( c). I Plaintillworked as part of a crew dismantling a sidewalk bridge. One component of the bridge wa an eight-fopt long, two hundred pound header beam connected on each end to a metal leg or pole. Th beam/legs formed an inverted "ll" with the beam running horizontally beneath the upper portion I oft e bridge ei~ht feet above the sidewalk and the legs standing vertically on the sidewalk. Plaintiff, his oreman Mjllo, and co-worker Byron were tasked with lowering the "U" to the ground. Mello and I By on each hel~ one leg and tipped the "U" backwards. Mello told plaintiff to "catch" the beam with I his ands and hlelp lower the "U" to the ground. Plaintiff stood with his arms outstretched and raised oulder heitht. 'lhe beam came "loo fast" and he was unable to grab it. The beam was heavy and it slipped, strik ng plaintiff on the chest and left knee. 3 [* 4] FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk I Integra~ed' s president Henry Gonzalez ("Gonzalez") was not involved in dismantling the bridge I but based upo~ his observations on other projects, three or four workers lowered the header beam and leg by hand lo re ground. Leighton did not to di rcct or control the disasscm b ly of the sidewalk bridge. Harrin~ton, Rockledge' s controller, stated that dismantling a sidewalk bridge involved removing i ood panel$, wood planking, junior beams, corrugated tin floors, and four-by-four pieces first before I an header be+s and supports were removed. He described the header beam as a steel I-beam, and cla ps connecfed the header beam to two metal supports. Dismantling an eight-foot bridge usually I req ired four tb five workers. Two workers held onto each support, with the beam attached, and I lo ered the frtme to the ground where it was dismantled. Depending on the length of the beam, an ther worke~ would stand at the middle of the beam to help. No pulleys, ropes or slings were used. I Ro kledge retafned Pro Safety Services to give monthly toolbox talks concerning safety, and Pro Safety Se vices instru~ted Rockledge employees on how to dismantle a sidewalk bridge. I Anthon~ Tamboni, Leighton's residential manager, was not involved with the project. He never de lt with an~ of the workers who erected or disassembled the sidewalk bridge. Joe Scholes (''S holes") sered as the property manager for Leighton from 2002 to 2008 pursuant to an agreement I bet een Leighfon and Cooper but he was not present at the site daily. He could not recall how I Int grated was !selected but recognized his signature on Leighton's contract with Integrated. ! Addresting Cooper's cross-motion first, Cooper moves for dismissal on the ground that it cannot be eld liable 1s Leighton's statutory agent. See Russin v. Louis N Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311, 42 N.E.2d 801, 445 N.Y.S.2d 127 (1981). "Statutory agency turns on the authority to supervise and I co trol the emplloyee." Voultepsis v. Gumley-Haft-Klierer, Inc., 60 A.D.3d 524, 525, 875 N.Y.S.2d 74, I 76 1st Dep't ~009) (citation omitted). The management agreement between Leighton and Cooper r rev als that Cpoper was not required to undertake any supervisory responsibilities for capital I im rovements I repairs unless provided for in a s~arate agreement. No separate agreement has been [* 5] FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk I I I pr duced, and there has been no showing that Cooper supervised plaintiffs work. See Parra v. Al/right I Pa king Mgt., Vnc., 59 A.D.3d 346, 873 N.Y.S.2d 623 (1st Dep't 2009). Plaintiff did not address this I br nch of the lcross-motion in his opposition. Accordingly, Cooper's cross-motion for summary I ju gment dis,issing plaintiffs complaint against it is granted. ! Labor ~aw § 240( 1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide safety I de ices to prottct workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites. McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 17 .Y.3d 3691, 374, 953 N.E.2d 794, 798, 929 N.Y.S.2d 556, 561 (2011). The statute applies to both I fal ing worker ~nd falling object cases. See Harris v. City ofNew York, 83 A.D.3d 104, 923 N.Y.S.2d I 2 ( st Dep't 20111). Plaintiff must demonstrate both a violation of the statute and that the violation was a p oximate carse of the injury. See Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. ofN. Y City, Inc., 1 N.Y.3d 28 , 803 N.E.td 757, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484 (2003). "The single decisive question is whether plaintiffs inj ries were t~e direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising I fro a physica~ly significant elevation differential." Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d I I 59 , 603, 922 Jf.E.2d 865, 866-867, 895 N.Y.S.2d 279, 280-281 (2009). The doctrine of comparative ne ligence is +t applicable. See Lopez v. Boston Props., Inc., 41 A.D.3d 259, 838 N. Y.S.2d 527 (!st I De 't 2007). Tpe statute applies when a scaffold is in the process of being dismantled or constructed. I See Metus v. L dies Mile Inc., 51 A.D.3d 537, 858 N.Y.S.2d 142 (1st Dep't 2008). Movan s contend that plaintiff was not subjected to an elevation-related risk. The testimony, tho gh, establi hes that the beam was being lowered from a height of eight feet. The fact that the beam wa being lowJred when it struck plaintiff does not remove the case from the statute's protection, see I Bri son v. Kul1ack's & Assoc., 296 A.D.2d 850, 744 N.Y.S.2d 621(4th Dep't 2002), and it cannot be I sai that the he~ght differential was minimal. See Marrero v. 2075 Holding Co. LLC, 106 A.D.3d 408, i 96 N.Y.S.2d il44 (1st Dep't 2013). Hopkins avers that a device of the type identified the statute could I I ha e prevented! the accident. Even if plaintiffs co-workers lowered the beam "slowly," plaintiff was 5 [* 6] FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk I no provided +th a safety device to check the beam's descent. Thus, plaintiffs cross-motion for I ju gment on li~bility on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action is granted, and the motion and cross1 m tions of Inttgrated, Leighton and Rockledge for dismissal on this cause of action are denied. "In ordf r to prevail on a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 ( 6), a plaintiff must establish av· olation of ~n implementing regulation which sets forth a specific standard of conduct." Ortega v. I Ev rest RealtylLLC, 84 A.D.3d 542, 544, 923 N.Y.S.2d 74, 77 (1st Dep't 2011). Plaintiff bases his cla'm on viola~ions of 12 NYCRR §§ 23-1.4(b)(l2) and (b)(l 7), 23-1.5(a) and (b), 23-1.7, 23-1.8, 23- f 1 1.11, 23-1.15, 3-1.16, 23-1.17, 23-1.18, 23-1.20, 23-1.25, 23-1.30, 23-2.1, 23-3 .3 and seeks leave to I 12 NYCR~ § 23-5.l(h). Movants have shown that the majority of the predicates cited are either I to general orl inapplicable to the facts, and plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact in I op ositi on. Sertions 23- ! .4(b )(I 2) and 23- I. 4(b)(I 7) define "competent" and "designated person" and do not set fort~ a specific standard of conduct. Section 23-1.5(a) and (b) pertains to the general res onsibility tf employers and is insufficient. See Carty v. Port Auth. ofN Y & NJ, 32 A.D.3d 732, 82 N.Y.S.2d 1178 (1st Dep't 2006), lv denied, 8 N.Y.3d 814, 870 N.E.2d 694, 839 N.Y.S.2d 453 I (2 07). Sectioiji 23-1. 7 (a) (overhead protection) is inapplicable since the masonry work was complete, I an barricades lwould have interfered with plaintiff's work. See Griffin v. Clinton Green S., LLC, 98 I A. .3d 41, 941N.Y.S.2d8 (1st Dep't 2012). The other subsections in Section 23-1.7 concern falling, drowning, slipting and tripping hazards. Plaintiff was not involved in work requiring protective eye we r, a respirat~r, or waterproof clothing as described in Section 23-1.8. Sections 23-1.11 (lumber and ! nai fasteningt), 23-1.20 (chutes), 23-1.25 (welding and flame cutting operations), 23-1.30 I (ill 1mination), ~3-2.1 (maintenance and housekeeping) are all inapplicable. Sections 23-1.15 (safety railing), 23-1.116 (safety belts, harnesses, tail lines and lifelines) and 23-1.17 (life nets) do not apply I be ause those qevices were not provided to plaintiff. See Dzieran v. 1800 Boston Rd., LLC, 25 A.D.3d i 3 3 , 808 N. Y. ,.2d 36 (I st Dep' t 2006). Section 23-1.18 does not set forth a specific procedure for the I 6 [* 7] I FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk dis ssembly o~ sidewalk sheds. Occupational Safety and Health regulations are also insufficient. See ! 1 Gr enwood v. rhearson, Lehman & Hutton, 238 A.D.2d 311, 656 N.Y.S.2d 295 (2d Dep't 1997). Pl intiff has ab ndoned his reliance on these predicates since he did not address them in his opposition. I Se Cardenas y· One State St., LLC, 68 A.D.3d 436, 890 N.Y.S.2d 41 (1st Dep't 2009). Sec ti 0123 · 3. 3 (b)( 3), (c), and (h), cited by Hop kins, is inapplicable. Demo li ti on work is defined as ' work incid{ntal to or associated with the total or partial dismantling or razing of a building or other ! str cture inclufing the removing or dismantling of machinery or other equipment." See 12 NYCRR § 3-1.4(b)(161). The overall project involved exterior masonry work, which does not constitute de olition wofk. See Solis v. 32 Sixth Ave. Co. LLC, 38 A.D.3d 389, 832 N.Y.S.2d 524 (1st Dep't 20 7). Plaintif was not engaged in the demolition of walls and partitions that were "left unguarded in su h conditionlthat such parts may fall, collapse or be weakened by wind pressure or vibration." See I 12 YCRR § t3-3.3(b)(3). The work did not require ongoing inspections to detect hazards resulting fro weakene4 or deteriorated floors or walls or from loosened material, and Section 23 · 3. 3(c) does not apply to Jaterial being loosened deliberately. See Garcia v. 225 E. 57th St. Owners, Inc., 96 A. Jd 88, 94f N.Y.S.2d 533 (!st Dep't 2012). Section 23-3.3(h) is unavailiog as plaintiff was not en aged in thel demolition by hand of structural steel. No structural steel was being dropped from a bui ding oroth1r structure, see Malloyv. Madison Forty-Five Co., 13 A.D.3d 55, 786 N.Y.S.2d433 (1st De 't 2004), a d the lowering of the header beam from its horizontal position does not implicate that pro ision. See astern Bldg. & Restoration, Inc., 96 A.D.3d 1123, 946 N.Y.S.2d 298 (3d Dep't 2012). Plaintif also cross-moves for leave to add 12 NYC RR § 23-5 .1 (h) as a predicate. Generally, I lea e to amendl shall be freely given. See Reilly v. Newireen Assocs., 303 A.D.2d 214, 756 N.Y.S.2d 19 (I st Dep'tj, Iv denied, I 00 N .Y.2d 508, 795 N.E.2d 1244, 764 N. Y.S.2d 235 (2003). Plaintiff. tho gh, has offtred no reason for the delay, see Lupo v. Pro Foods, LLC, 68 A.D.3d 607, 891 N.Y.S.2d 37 (1st Dep't ~009), nor has he shown any merit to his claim. Section 23-5. l (h) provides that"[e]very I 7 [* 8] FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk sc ffold shall tje erected and removed under the supervision of a designated person," and his testimony I de onstrates tpat Mello was present and directed his work. See Canosa v. Holy Name of Mary R. C. I Ch rch, 83 A.~.3d 635, 920 N.Y.S.2d 390 (2d Dep't 2011); Atkinson v. State ofNew York, 49 A.D.3d I 98 , 854 N.Y.$.2d 556 (3d Dep't 2008). I Labor iaw § 200 codifies the common-law duty that an owner or general contractor provide I I co struction wprkers with a safe work site. See Comes v. NY State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 876, I 63 N.E.2d 11~, 609 N.Y.S.2d 168 (1993). Liability may be imposed where defendant supervised and i i co trolled the injury-producing work, see Suconota v. Knickerbocker Props., LLC, 116 A.D.3d 508, I 98 N.Y.S.2d t7 (1st Dep't 2014), or where defendant had actual or constructive notice of the specific de ect or hazar?ous condition that caused the accident. See Mitchell v. NY Univ., 12 A.D.3d 200, 784 I N . . S.2d 104 (llst Dep't 2004). Leighton has established that the accident occurred as the result of the I me ns and met~ods of plaintiffs work over which it had no control. See Suconota v. Knickerbocker ! Pr ips., LLC, stpra.; Doodnath v. Morgan Contr. Corp., 101A.D.3d477, 956 N.Y.S.2d 11 (1st Dep't I 20 2). Plainti~f did not address this branch of the cross-motion in his opposition. ! Integra~ed also moves for summary judgment on its third-party complaint for contractual ind mnificatioi from Rockledge. An intention to indemnify must be clearly implied from the language I an purpose of the agreement. See Campos v. 68 E. 86th St. Owners Corp., 117 A.D.3d 593, N. .S.2d- (2f 14). Paragraph 11 of the Integrated/Rockledge contract reads that Rockledge "agrees to 'ndemnify, 1efend and hold the Customer, its directors, officers, partners, agents and employees f har less from nd against all claims, damages, losses, suits, judgments, actions and expenses (including i att rney's fees rnd costs) caused directly and solely by Rockledge" or its employees. Plaintiffs claim I cle rly falls wi~hin the scope of the indemnification provision. See Suconota v. Knickerbocker Props., i LL , supra. Cpntrary to Rockledge's contention, the motion is not premature. The subject provision I do snot insulate Integrated from its own negligence, and there has been no showing that Integrated's I I I 8 [* 9] ! FILED Jul 17 20i4 Bronx County Clerk ne ligence cau,ed the accident. The court notes that Rockledge in opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion I so ght the dis1*issal of all claims seeking common-law indemnification and contribution against it on the ground tha~ plaintiff did not suffer a grave injury. None of the pleadings contain any cross-claims I ag inst Rockl,dge, and Workers' Compensation Law § 11 does not bar Integrated' s claim for co tractual ind~mnification. See Fiorentino v. Atlas Park LLC, 95 A.D.3d 424, 944 N. Y.S.2d 60 (1st De 't 2012). Leight n/Cooper also move for summary judgment on its cross-claim seeking contractual and cm mon-law ndemnification from Integrated. Paragraph 8.13 .1 of the supplement to the I Leighton/Integrated contract provides that Integrated "shall indemnify and hold harmless the Owner ... from and a ainst all reasonable claims, damages, losses and expenses ... (2) attributable to bodily inj ry ... but nly to the extent caused in whole or in part by negligent act(s) or omission(s) of the Co tractor, an one directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable I reg rdless of ivhether or not such claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in part by a party I ind mnified hefeunder." The provision also includes indemnification for Leighton's managing agent, Co per. Leighfon's liability under Labor Law§ 240(1) is purely vicarious, and the "saving" language I "to the fullest +tent permitted by law" renders the provision enforceable. See Guzman v. 170 W. End Av . Assoc., 1115 A.D.3d 462, 981 N.Y.S.2d 678 (1st Dep't 2014). Thus, Leighton and Cooper are ent tled to judg~1ent on their cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Integrated. Commo~-law indemnification is available where (I ) a party is he! d vicariously liable without pro f of any ne~ligence or actual supervision on its part; and (2) that the proposed indemnitor was either neg igent or ex1rcised actual supervision over the work. See Naughton v. City ofNew York, 94 A.D.3d I 1, 40 N.Y.s.2µ 21 (1st Dep't 2012). Since Leighton and Cooper have not shown that Integrated I act ally superv~sed plaintiffs work, this branch of the cross-motion is denied. I Accordlgly, it is 9 [* 10] FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk 0 RD E~D, that the motion of defendant/third-party plainti fflntegrated Construction Services In . for summt'ry judgment on its third-party complaint seeking contractual indemnification against thi d-party defi ndant Rockledge Scaffold Corp. is granted; and it is further I ORDEfED, that the cross-motion of third-party defendant Rockledge Scaffold Corp. for I issal of ptaintiff's complaint and the third-party claims is granted to the extent of dismissing I pl intiff's Labfr Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action and is otherwise denied; and it is further I ORD~RED, that the cross-motion of defendants Leighton House Condominium and Cooper are Realt) Inc. s/h/a Cooper Square Realty Inc. for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's co plaint and/or judgment on their cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification ag inst defendint/third-party plaintiff Integrated Construction Services Inc. is granted to the extent of I gr nting dismitsal of plaintiff's Labor Law§§ 200 and 241(6) and common-law negligence causes of act on against !defendant Leighton House Condominium; granting summary judgment in favor of i de endants Lei~hton House Condominium and Cooper Square Realty, Inc. s/h/a Cooper Square Realty cro~s-claim for contractual indemnification against defendant/third-party plaintiff Integrated struction ~ervices Inc.; and granting dismissal of plaintiff's complaint in its entirety against Inc. on their Co I de ndant Co of er Square Realty, Inc. s/h/a Cooper Square Realty Inc.; and it is further I ORDEfED, that plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law I § 2 0 cause of rction and for leave to amend his amended bill of particulars is granted to the extent of ! gra ting judg1*ent on the issue of the liability of defendants Leighton House Condominium and I Int grated Con$truction Services Inc. on his Labor Law§ 240 cause of action and denying plaintiff leave I to mend his vhified bill of particulars; and it is further I ORDEtED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant/third! par y plaintiff Iftegrated Construction Services Inc. on its cause of action for contractual indemnification ag inst third-ptty defendant Rockledge Scaffold Corp.; and it is further 10 I [* 11] FILED Jul 17 2014 Bronx County Clerk ORDE,ED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Lei hton Housi Condominium dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law§§ 200 and 241(6) and common-law neg igence cau1es of action against it; and it is further ORDE~ED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendants ! Lei hton Hous9 Condominium and Cooper Square Realty, Inc. s/h/a Cooper Square Realty Inc. on their I cro s-claim fo~ contractual indemnification against defendant/third-party plaintiff Integrated I Co struction S~rvices Inc.; and it is further I ORDE,ED, that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant Co per Square Realty, Inc. s/h/a Cooper Square Realty Inc. dismissing plaintiff's complaint against it. I This co4stitutes the decision and order of the court. I Dat d: July 10, 2014 ;Lucinda Suarez, J.S.C. 11

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.