york and the battery park city authority for failing to provide them with the proper respiratory equipment and failing to warn them of the dangers of the world trade center dust at the stuyvesant high school the appellants are claiming respiratory injuries such as as as a result of their exposure the st issue to address is whether or not the district court erred in finding plaintiffs claims moot section two of the final settlement agreement with the city is a judgment reduction three the w t c captive misled the plaintiffs in bad faith at the time of negotiating the final settlement agreement and for the battery park city authorities negligent acts are not covered by the indemnification provision of the lease they had with the board of education section to leave the final film with agreement states and roll them part that nothing in the settlement agreement shall terminate plaintiff's rights if any against other defendants during the the world trade center captive took the position that the battery park city authorities indemnity claims were merit lists and that the battery park city authority is not in and short of the w t c captives as a result the battery park city authority  not become a settling party and the battery park city authority never contribution anything financially into the final settlement agreement approximately eight years after the final settlement agreement on may th two thousand and eighteen relied on the w t c captains position at their claims can continue against the battery park city a start a missile apollo before we get to questions of discovery you just made assertions about what the captive insurance than any told you during the night you personally necessarily during the negotiations now that's something that your side of the table knows happened or there affidavit or evidence in the record could you refer me to where i would find them the document these representations that you've just been reciting yes judge lynch i can refer that these same claimants may also have been employed at other sites and there could be all kinds of reasons why they would have claims against the battery park city authority but we're talking specifically about the claims regarding stuyvesant indemnification and it should i would think it would be a rather easy matter if there was a representation that we're denying indemnity for these claims and you still have a claim regarding appellant's rely on that information when they decided to settle with the city of new york because the values of all of the appellant's settlements with the city and all the other defendants all took into consideration that their claims against the battery park city authority will continue if the defense if the appellants to not have valid claims against the battery park city authority for their exposure at the site and high school they would have demand more money from the city for their exposure efforts i was in high school and demanded more money from other defendants for their exposures at the other locations the appellate believe that the extrinsic evidence will show that the w t c captive understood and expected the appellant's claims to continue against the battery park city authority the un clean hands and bad faith negotiations on behalf of the w c c cap that warrants been mean of section two need to it to be explored to extrinsic evidence i know you're i know you're running out of time i want to ask one of the thing that you mentioned for arguments and one that seems very significant to me is negligence on the part of the bettery park city authority because that that the battery park city authority had with the board of education release is the battery park city authority from liability for negligent and well plaque of the tenants but the board of such of the board of education however the battery park city authority remains loyal to those who possess actions where the battery park city authority incurred and negligent and towards conduct themselves i got a stamp i understand that's what that's outside the  why i'm asking you to tell me just what did they do that was negligent i understand written contract i want to know what the evidence of negligence is what did they do wrong they failed to inspect the premises they failed to warn the  protective equipment and as a result they have and they have a duty to do that when it is the city that is responsible for managing this entire project yes under the we specifically article seventeen of the we take it  on why even though the city is responsible for managing the cleanup and handling the bill affairs of the building where is the duty from the landlord located in article nineteen of the of the east it gives the battery park city authority the right to enter the right to inspection to determine whether or not a tenant is in compliance with its obligations to make repairs and make any necessary repairs to the premises ok i got it i understand what your frankness thank you thank you please the court mark warner for the deputies he kept insurance company and with me at the virtual counsel table is rachel goldman the battery park city city with the goal of every settlement ication claims and a decade and a half devotion of judicial resources this court long ago approved the use of judgment reduction for this for good reason these provisions allow settling the sentence to buy peace and to cut off further litigation and derivative liability judgment reduction provisions also preserve judicial resources finality was accomplished here after tireless efforts by counsel and by the district court this landmark settlement agreement provided substantial recoveries for these plaintiffs and in turn relieved and resolved the city of new york for liability for all nine hundred and eleven related debris removal activities the release signed by each of these plans incorporated the terms of the settlement agreement the keystone to finality was the judgment reduction provision section thirty two dollars she's through with the plaintiff in exchange for the city's payment gave up any further recovery to the record i just took a quick look at them now it looks like it's the bank i thought that i thought and i wouldn't sign the deal that i been told otherwise but is there anything in the record that courts and any form of inducement improper representation misrepresentation or otherwise in fact during the twenty two months that the new the settlement was negotiated with counsel for these planes there was numerous discussion about the fact of potential intensification claims not specifically with regard to battery park but in general the cation claims against the w t c captive in shards and most against non insured entities of the w t c captain but there was never any representation about claims regarding the battery park city authority and let me i'm sad i didn't mean to interrupt the issue it seems to me is when it's clear that of course the plaintiffs could pursue claims against battery park city authority over anything they want to pursue the claim over the question is whether so i guess what i would be looking for in the record is any representation i think this will a poet came very close to saying there was a specific representation that  you or anybody else on your side of the negotiating table absolutely  he seemed to treat this as two separate issues whether the claims were moot and then goes and says but even if they weren't moot very park city authority was not negligence and no evidence of negligence there  i would have thought that because negligence takes you out of the indemnity that that's a necessary thing for the court to find in order to apply the judgment reduction for vision but the issue with regard to negligence p c a is only under section two hundred and the court found that there was absolutely no evidence in the record to demonstrate as is has held that a mere right to enter the premises does not provide sufficient meaningful supervisory control under labor law two hundred dollars so there is no basis in the record for this  negligence option under the lease to come into effect the plaintiffs complaint is that they haven't had a chance as i understand it to get discovery on that to prove their negligence relating to what happened at the high school and furthermore that the lease was just the subject of discovery was produced to be plaintiff in april of two thousand and twelve they had several years to undertake discovery to determine the facts and circumstances at stuyvesant which fadia they took depositions and they got access to documentary information from b p ca the fact is that the record is clear that they could not prove that there was any meaningful supervisory control or that there was construction going on at stuyvesant so the claim that they did not have adequate opportunity in this  well wrong furthermore when the court converted the twelve the six motion to a rule fifty six dollars motion the court complied with the rules gave notice to the parties and allowed the parties to provide further evidence to support their claims under rule fifty six at that time these plaintiffs the appellant did not provide any further evidence to resupport as they were required under rule thirty six to warner's arguments if it has been substantial recovery remember that the plaintiff's appellants here took into consideration that the claims against the battery park city authority will continue and that determined the sum of the values for all of the other settling defendants now he's point to us who are the appellant's here relied on the representations of the w c c captive and not only deciding whether or not the city with to settle with the city of new york and the other side on the fence but also took their position in reliance on making a decision as to whether or not they since these plaintiffs have claims that continue they are not eligible to participate in the nine hundred and eleven world trade center victims compensation fund like all of the other point this who settled with the city of new york in the final settlement agreement and it would be telling if their claims are now almost ten years after they that they were going to indemnify the battery park city authority and they could have included them in the final settlement agreement way back in two thousand and ten and if they indicated they were going to be in the find them we simply would have just itself the question is it has to do with indemnity and is there any statement by anybody in this record where during the negotiation of the settlement agreement you know you said they could have represented that they i want to know where's the evidence of a misrepresentation where somebody said oh don't worry about this judgement reduction clause because we're not going to indemnify we've denied indemnity to better reports is there something like that unfortunately not judgments and that's why i'm asking for discovery on expensive evidence because we have i'm sorry excuse me excuse me this is not something you don't have to ask in discovery of the captive what they said to you if they said something like that to you you collectively the lawyers for the plaintiffs the plaintiffs themselves though i don't know how they would have  any contact with the plaintiffs themselves outside a context where the lawyers were present there were people who were present who heard those misrepresentations if they were made and it would be a simple matter for evidence to be put into the record now if the evidence is in the record then maybe you go to the court and say we want to hear their side of the story next so we are entitled to discovery but you don't need discovery to establish that someone made a misrepresentation to you or at least put in evidence in the record that happened understood you know i didn't besides the papers in this matter there's not a specific document that would demonstrate that the captain informed me and my office that they were not going to be indemnify the battery park city authority at the time of contracting we've had numerous conversations over the years as it was trying to settle the questions with the battery park city authority as to whether or not the captive will be indemnify in the battery park city authority and on a whole such conversations we were informed numerous times by the captive that they would not be intensifying the battery park city authority that any claims of this better is better yes your honor yes judge now i there's actually two of you on my screen