### Cotroneo v Van Wagner Sign Erectors, LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 30811(U) March 13, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 162038/2015 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492 INDEX NO. 162038/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024 

### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: 

### HON.MARYV.ROSADO Justke

_____________._ ..-... Te---------------------------------------------••••o.n -----X COSMO COTRONEO. Plaintiff,

- V - VAN WAGNER SIGN ERECTORS. LLC. NIK/A OUTFRONT MEDIA SIGN ERECTORS. LLC., VAN WAGNER ELECTRICAL AND MAINTENANCE, LLC. N/KJA OUTFRONT MEDIA ELECTRICAL AND MAINTENANCE. LLC., VAN WAGNER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC. N/K/A OUTFRONT MEDIA Vi/V COMMUNICATIONS, LLC., VORNADO REALTY TRUST. VORNADO OFFICE. INC
..VORNADO SlGN. LLC,ONE PENN PLAZA LLC.• Defendant.

CROSS MANAGEMENT CORP. Plaintiff,-againstNEAD ELECTRlC OF NEW JERSEY. INC. Defendant.

-------·- -~· - -- OT- --- ----------------------------------·~--- -~-.---------------X VAN WAGNER SIGN ERECTORS, LLC N/KJA OUTFRONT MEDIA SIGN ERECTORS, LlC. Plaintiff,-againstNEAD ELECTRlC OF NEW JERSEY, tNC. Defendant. ---------------------------··-·•• ·~~-~------------------------------ --- -~-••X VORNADO REALTY TRUST, VORNADO OFFICE, INC., VORNADO SIGN, LLC, ONE PENN PLAZA LLC Plaintiff,-against162038-/2015 COTRONEO, COSIYIO v:s. OUTFRONT MEDIA SIGN ERECTORS Motion No. 009 1 of 9 PART 33M
INDEX NO. MOTION DATE 162038/2015 05/04/2023 MOTION SEQ. NO.
__ _.:0:.=0-=.9__

DECISION 

### + ORDER ON MOTION

Toird-Pa

### rty Index No. 595393/2016

Second Third-Party Index No. 59550412019

Third Third-Party Index No. 596052/2020

Page 1 of g 

### [* 1]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492

NEAD ELECTRIC, INC, NEAD ELECTRIC OF NEW JERSEY, INC. Defendant. -------------------------------~·~-----------------------------.--••r.-X INDEX NO. 162038/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024



### The followmg e-filed documents, listed by 

### NYSCEF document number {Motion 

### 009) 433, 434, 435, 436, 437,438,439,440,441,442,443,444. 445,446,447,448,449,450.451, 452,453,454,455.456,457. 

### 458,459,460,461,462,463,464,465,466,467,468,469,470,471.472, 473,474,475,476,477,478. 479,480.481. 482,483,484 485,486,487,488.489, 490 were read on this motion to/for 

### JUDGMENT-SUMMARY:..___ _ Upon 1hc foregoing documents, ·11tird-Party Defendants/Second Third-Party Defendants/Third Third-Party Oefcndants Nead Electric, 

### rnc. and Nead Electric, Inc. i/s/h/a Nead Electric ofKe\v J~rsey, J nc.'s (co!lcctively "l\cad") motion for an Order granting 

### l\cad summaryjudgmtnt dismissing the Third-Party (~YSCEf Doc. 444), Second Third-Puny (NYSCIT Doc. 445) Third Third-Party (NYSCFF Due. 446) claims, cross-daims. and counter

### d aim~ asserted against 

### it is denied. 

### I. Backgrountl PlaintiffCosmo Cotroneo ("'Plaintiff") cmmnenced this action fol' alleged injury sustained
on or about February 14, 2013 1 \Vhile working as. an electrician for Nead at a construction project located al 4.10 Seventh Avenue in Manhattan {the ·•Premises" or I.he "Site'') 

### ov,,ned an<l managed 

### by Dcfcndants!Third Third-Party Plaintiffs Vomudo Realty Trust and One 

### Penn Plaza, LLC (NYSCEF Ooc. 466 at 

## ii 4). Ocfcndant/Sec:onJ Third•Party Plaintiff Outfront Media Sign Erectors~ LLC f/kla Van Wagm:r Sign Erectors, I.LC (·Outfront"_) was retained hy Vornado to perfom1 work to convert a

: The nriginal Ctunplaint and Dill ofParticu!ars st:rvcd by Pbcntiff aHcgcd that the date ofthe accident was February 17, 20l3. Ddt:ndants disputed this date, noting that it was .i Siinclay (NYSCEF lJ-oc. 397, ,- J6), Ry OrJer Jatcd January :?3, 2019, tilis Court directed PlaintitTto file an Amended Summons and Complaint with the wrrcc{ed date nr L he aceid(:m (N YSCFF Doc. !77). The date was determincd to he February 14, 20D based on timc sheet records [JfPlaimiff's employ~r (>JYSCFF Doc 377).

1620381~-015 COTRONE;:0, COSMO 11s. OUTFRONT MEDIA $IGI\I ERECTORS Motion No, 009 2 of 9 Page 2 of9 

### [* 2]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492 INDEX NO. 162038/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024 

### vinyJ, "static" rooftop sign to a digital advertising sign 

### (N YSCLF Doc. 466 at 

## 1 4). Outfro11t suhsequenlly retained Nead to pcrfonn electrical power in~tul lalion for the 

### sign (Id.). Plaintiffand his workers were ta~kcd with ''Joading tools and equipment into the 'foreman's helper' gang box, which v.·ould then serve as a 'boat' to be hoisted 

### hy a crane...lo the roof' (NYSCEF Doc. 46 at 

## ii 7). Plaintiffalleges that on Fchruary 17, 20t 3, he sustained severe and permanent injurtcs due to a <ldedive and (fongerous gang box (NYSCEF Doc. 440 at,.- 71). Spcc:iticully, PlaintiffalJeges that on the sidewalk at or near the Premises, he was struck 

### by the lid ofa "foreman)s hclper'° gang 

### box whtk in the 

### l:ourse 

# or his employment with Nead (~ YSC I~F Doc. 466 at .- 

### !

### 0). Plaintiff commenced the underlying action on November 20, 2015, 

### by filing a Summons and Complaint asserting rnrnmon law negligence, and violations

# or I,abor I.aw Secl1ons 200, 240, and 241 (6) agaJnst Defendants Vornado Realty Trust (Vornado"). One Penn Plaza, LLC, Outfront, Tom Recknwald Construction. Inc, North Shore J\con Sign Co., Tne., and Cross Jvfonagcmcnt Corp ('·Defendants") 

### (>J"YSCFF Doc. 440). 2 Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Cross Management Corp. filed a Third-Party 

### Sllmmons und Complaint against Nead dated VJay 19, 2016 (NYSCEF Doc. 444).· 1 Thereafter, Outfront Wed
a Second Third-Party Summons and Complaint agains.t Nead dated June 12, 2019, 

### us5erting crmses ofaction for common law and contrn~tual im.lemnificHtion, and contribution and breach ofcontract (N"YSCEF Doc. 445). Subsequently, Dcfcndants./Third Third-Party Plaintiffs Vornado Realty 

### Trust, Vornado Office, inc., Vornado 

### Sign. I.LC anJ One Penn Plaza, I.LC (collectively "Third

2 Oefcndants Tom Reucnwakl ::inJ North Sh(m.: Neon Sign were prev[ous.ly dismissed from this mallL:r via lhc Decision ~nd Or(lcr nr the Ccnirt. dmcd January 23, :2U l 9 C<YSO~i-: Doc. 4:,:;:}. 3 l)cf(:nJuntilhird-Pany rlaintiff Cross .\.1<1nage-me-nt Corp. wat. vulunlari!y discontinued from thi~ matter per stipubtinn of discontinmrnce dmcd f\.-fay ~4, ~O 19 (;-.JYSCFF Dr11:. 439") and th~rdor~ Cross Management's initial Third- Party Complaint against Nead is rttldcrcd mOo[ 11nJ i~ di smisscd by operatLOll (If law,

162038{2{115 COTRONE::O, COSMO vs. OUTFRONT MEDIA SIGN ERECTORS Motion No. 009 3 of 9 Page 3 of 9 

### [* 3]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492 INDEX NO. 162038/20l5 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024
Third-Party Plaintiffs~·) filed a Third-Party Summons and 

### V~rified Third~Party Complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 446) usserting causes ofaction for contractual indemnity, common la\v indemnity, comribu.lion and breach ofwntract against Nead. On 

### May 4, 

### 2023) Nead brought the instant motion for fill ()rJcr gn.mting Nead summary judgment dismissing the 

### Third-Purly. Second 

### Third-Party and Third lhird-Parly claims. crossclaims and counter claims asserted against it {NYSCEP Doc. 433). Outfrcmt filed an Ailim1alion in Opposition 

### w NcaJ's motion dated 

### Ju!y 24, 2023 (); YSCEF Doc. 470). Plaintjff suhminc-J an Affirmation in Opposition to Nead's motion dated July 28, 2023 (NYSCEF Orn:. 475). Third Third-Party Plainti

### lls submitted 

### an Affirmation 

### in Opposition 10 Nea<l"**~** motion 

### on Augu:'il 1I, 2023 (~YSCEf Doc. 488).4 

### II. l)jsrns~itm 

### A. Standard Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. to be granted only where the movtng party has tendered sufficient cvidem::e to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.') ( 

### Vega v Resrani ComJ. Corp., 18 ~Y3d 499, 503 [2012]). The moving party's .. burden is a heavy one and


### on umotion for summary judgment, facts must 

### be vi~,ved in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

### party." 

### (],,cob.sen v New fork 

### City 

### Health and 1 lnsp.v. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 12014

## DOnce this showing is made, the burden shifts to the pm1y opposing the mntion to produce cvidcntiary proof, in 

### admissible form, suflicient to establish the exi.'jtence ofmaterial issues of fact which require a trial. (See e.g.. :Luckerman v 

### City ofNew York. 49 ~Y~J 557, 562 [I980]; 

### Pembenon 

### r New York City Tr. Aurh, 304 AD2u 140, 342 [1st Dept 20031). Mere conclusions of

1 While it 15 noted that Third-Party Plaintiffs. submitted their opposition three day~ before the return date, rather th,m scv('n days as required by CPLR Rule 2214{b}, the Court, in its discretion, elect~ to con:s:ider Third-Party Piatntiff's opposjti on,

162038/2015 COTFIONEO, COSMO vs. 01.JTFfWNT ME:DIA SIGN ERECTORS Motion No. 009
4 of 9 Page 4 of 9 

### [* 4]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492 INDEX NO. 162038/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

law or fact arc insufficient to defeal a motion for summaryjudgment 

### (see Bunco Popular ;Vorth 

### Am. v Vicrory Taxi }vfgt., 

### Inc., 1 NY3J 38 l 12004.1), 

### B. Nc_ad's M.Qt[on for Summm}' Judgment 

### It is. v.-ell t"stahlishcd that Workers· Compensution f.a.\v ("\'1/CL")**~** 11 i.prohibits 

### lhir<lparty 

### indemnification or contribution daims against employers, 

### exci::pl \vhcre the employee sustained a 'grave injury.' or the clajm is ~based upon a provision in a written contract enlercd 

### into prior to the accident 

### or O'.:currcnce by which 

### the employer 

### had expressly 

### agreed to contribution to
or indemnification ofthe daimant or person 

### as::;,erting the cause ofaction" 

### (Rodriguez v .N&.\'B1dg. Contrs., inc.• 

### 5 KY3d 427. 430 [2005]). 1. No Written 

### Contract Containing a Valid Contractual Indemnity Provision Exists :-.Jcad 

### appeals to \VCL 

### § 11 in support of

### its argument that, as the Plaintiff's cmploycl', aH 

### daims. again-;t 

### it must be dismissed because 110 

### valid and cnforceabk 

### contractual indemnity pmvision exists 

### (NYSCEF Doc. 

### 434 at p. 14). 

### At the outset. Outfront 

### argues in opposition 

### that Nead has failed to 

### meet its 

### primafacie burden for summary judgment 

### by failing 

### to proffer admi'lsiblc 

### evidc-ncc to suppon 

### ib daim 

### that no contractual 

### agrei;:mcnt including an indemn1ty provision exists (l\YSCEF Doc. 470 at p. 3). Specific(11ly, Outfrnnt contends that Nead has failed lo demons1ratc. through admissible 

### evidence, that Nead·

### s Proposal for \l,/mk (the 

### ''Proposal'') ().l"YSCEF Doc. 

### 457) is a full and complete copy 

## or the proposal between 

### the parties (NYSCLJ<' Due. 470 at 

## ~i 11). The Court of Appeul s has held that "l\v]hcther the parties did in fact have such an agreement involves a 

### tv,m-1Mrt inquiry. 

### First, we consider 

### \vhether the 

### parties entered into a 

### \vri Lten contract containing an indemnl

### ty 

### provision apphcable to the site or job where the injury giving

16:203812015 COTRONEO, COSMO vs. OUTf'RONT MEDIA SIGN ERECTORS Motion No. 009 5 of 9 Page 5 of 9 

### [* 5]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492 INDEX NO. 162038/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

rise to the indemnity claim took place. Second, 

### ifso, \Ve examine whether the indemnity provision 

### was suffi ci

### ent

### I y particular to 

### meet the 

### rcquirements 

### ofsection 

### 11" (Rodriguez at 

### 4 3

2). Here, 

### the deposition testimony ofAndrew II.o]tzer (NYSCEF Doc. 455), the Vice President of Design and Tcchnology for Outfront, estahlished that Mr. Hull/er acknowledged that the Proposal was sent to him in the regular cour~ of business and that when he received the Proposal [n the regular course of business, he reviewed it with Eli Zamek, of Vornado, and was told to proceed (NYSCEF Dm:. 455, pp. 62: l48; l59}(/Jank

### ofA.merica, / 1 /ar. 

### Ass 'n v 

### Brannon~ 156 A.D3d l [

### l st 

### Dt:pl 201 

### 71 

## r records admis:-1ihlc rl

### if the r~cipient can estabhsh .. ' that the records provided 

### by the maker \verc incorporated into the recipient's O\Vn r~cords or routinely relied upon 

### by 1hc re~ipient in its business"

## J. Contrary to the assertions of Outfronl, Mr. Holtzer's te~tirnony dcmonsm1tes personal knowledge ofthe proposal which is the ba<:,is ofthe contractual relationship hetwecn movam and Outfrom and v.--hich, significantly, contained no ind~mnity provision. Accordingly, N~ud has established 

### prima

### .facte thut there \Vas no v.Titten contract enten~<l into prior to the accident 

### by which it had expressly agreed to contribution or indemnification. Nor have third-party plaintiffs ;(;ubmittcd any evjdcncc ofa written 

### imk:mnity agreement 

### be11,vccn the partje~. As there is no dispute that Nead was not retained pursuant to any formal \vritten contract, all third-pany indemnification or contribution claims aguinsl Nead are prohihitcd 

### by WCL 

### § 1l, except \Vhcrc the employee sustained a i.grnve injury." 

### u. Mate1ial Questions 

### of Fact Remain Regarding Whether 

### P!ainli ff Sustuined a Gm\\; lnjurv Pursuant 

## rn WCL 

### §l l It is well established that, 

### with respect to WCL 

### §1I, it 

### is "the burden ofthe party seeking summ...1.ry judgment to show, 

### by competenL adrnjssiblc evidence, that the plaintiffs. inj urics \Vere not •grave'" 

### (Altonen ii 

### Toyota idotor Credit Corp., 32 AD.1<l 

### 342. 343 [l st Dept 2006t).

1S2038f2 Q15 COTRONEC, COSMO Ys.. OUTFRO NT MEDIA SIGN ERECTORS Motion No. 009 6 of 9 Page Gof "II 

### [* 6]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492 INDEX NO. 162038/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024
Herc, Outfronl, Plaintiff and Third Third~Party P1 aintiffs arguc that Nea<l failed to demonstratc its entitlement Lo judgment as a matter of law as there is a triable issue of fact \vhether Plaintiffs claimed traumatic brain injury constituks a grave injury under WCL 

### § 11. WCL §11 states that grave injury shall meun only one or more 

# or the following:: ID lcath, permanenl and total loss of use or amputation or an ann. leg~ hand or foot, loss of muhiple fingers. loss of muhiple toes. paraplegia or quadripkgia, total and perrnant:!nt blindness, total and pem1am::nt deafness, Joss ofnose. loss ofear, permanent and severe facial Ji:'iCigurcmcnt, loss of an index finger or an acquired injury to the brain 

### nlused by a.n external ph)'sica) force resuJting in 

### permanent totaJ disahiJity 

### f cmphasi~ a<ldcd_l. The Court ofAppeals ha:,; held that 'Toe Le~l \VC adopt for permanent total disability under section 11 is one 

# or unemployability 

### in any c.:apucity (Rubeis v Aqua Club 

### Inc., 3 NY:ld 408. 417 [2004]) [

### emphasis in odgimd]. 

### In suppon of its position that Plaintiff did not suffer a grave injury 

### a-. a result of the Accident, !\'cad submial'.<l Plaintiff's workern' compensation record~ which sho,v Lhai Plaintiffs first post-acl'.idcnt MRI ofthe bruin, taken on June 27, 2014 (over a year after the accident), wa~ normal (NYSCEF Doc. 

### 463). A subsequent T\-HU of Plainti

## rr s hrain taken on August 21, 2015 stales that the results ofPlainti

# rrs MRI were -~normal'' (NYSCEF Doc. 464). furthcr, Keurological
exams perfomJed hy Dr. Amit Klrnneja on November 24, 2016, and Jamiary 27, 2016 showed Plaintiffs mental status intact (NYSCEF Doc. 463 

### al p, 

### I2t his motor syst~ms normal 

### (Id. 

### al p. 13), and ambulal1on with a normal gait (Id). Dr. Khaneja state:'i in his report that it is his professional opinion that "Mr. Cotroneo is capable of

### working with restrictions 

### to be 

### placed on no lifting over l 5 pounds"' (Id. at p. 14). Additionally. I\cad submille<l the Supplemental Report of ncmopsychologist David M. Erlanger, Ph.D., 1\BPP. which stated that "there was no evidence that the reported [February 17, 2023] incident had affected Mr. Cotroneo's abihty to perforn1 work

15203812015 COTRONEO, COSMO vs, OUTFRONT ME.DIA SIGN ERECTORS Motion No. 009
7 of 9 P.ige 7 of'!3 

### [* 7]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492 INDEX NO. 162038/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

tasks on a full-time basis" (NYSCEF Doc. 459 at 

### p. 20). l\cad also provided u report of Rehabititation Specialist. Jost:ph Pessalano, who conducted a vocational assessment of Plaintiff
on April 20, 2021, and identified essential job functions for several positions appropriate for Plaintiff in the field of electronic:-; engineering with the average salary ranging from $37,860 to $78,730 (NYSCEF Doc. 460). However, the report of Dr. Richard S'.:huster ()iYSCEF Doc. 41 St a vocationaJ psychologist who evaluated Plaintiff on July 9, 20 l 9 com:luded that 

## "fa]t this point continued chronic unemployment can be expected. The combination of 

## IPlaintiffs] ph:ysicaJ limitations, elderly work status. psychological ramifications. ncurohchavimal/"executivc·• dysfunction, etc. combine to foster such a sjgnificant imp~Jiment that even functioning in daily life remains negatively impacted" 

### (1\YSCFF Doc. 478 at p. 

### 33-34). Furthn, the Affidavit of neurologist Ur. Allen Pcrd, who has treated Plaintiff since June 24, 2014, slates that Plaintiff is "sigriificantly di subled at present and cannot return to work in any capacity, particular]y because ofhis traumatic brain injury, anxiety, depression and memory lo.:;;(;," and that Plaintiffs symptoms ··were cau'ied 

### by the work-related accident and injuries he suffered" (NYSCFF Doc. 478 at pp. 33-34). In light ofthe conflicting testimony in lhe record, the Court finds th.at questions ofmaterial fact remain regarding whether Plaintiffsuffered a grave injury as defined hy WCI. 

### §11. As such, ~ead's motion for summaryjudgment is denied. Accordingly, 

### it is hereby, ORDERED thal Third-Party Dcfcndants/Scnm<l Third-Pany Defendants/ll1ird ThirdParty Defendants l\cad Electric, Inc. and Nead Electric, Inc. 's motion for summary _judgment is denied; and it is further

1620381201**~** COTRONEO, COSMO\/~. OUTFRQNT M;EDIA SIGN ERECTORS Motlon No. M9
8 of 9 Page 

### aof 9 

### [* 8]INDEX NO. 162038/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

ORDEF ·D that 

### lJcfcndantfThfrd
-Party Plaintiff Cro Managernenl Corp. Third-Party

,omplaint is dismissed as moot; and 

### it is further ORD ,RED that on or before April 16, 2024, the remaining parti1..;s are directed to submit
a proposed 'taru Conference Order to the Court ia e-mail to , FC-Part33-CJcrktaln:ycourt. .gov. If the parties are nable to agrt":e to a proposed tams Confer nee Order, the parties are dire tcd to appear for an in-person starus onl

-rence 

### v,r ith lhe Court in Room 442; 60 Cenlre Street, on April 

### 17. 2024 at 

### 9:30 a.m.: 

### and it is 

### further ORDERED that 

### within ten (10) 

### day. ofent ry, coun 

### el for Movant 

### sha1l serve a copy of this Decision and Order with notice ofenlry upon all parties to thi. 

### at:tion; and 

### it is further ORDERED thaL the Clerk ofthe Court is 

### directed lo enterjudgment accordingly. This con ·titutes the Decision 

### and Order ofthe Court.

311312024

DATE HON
. ARY V. ROSADO, J
.S
.C
. CHECK ONE : APPLICATION ; CHECK IF APPROPR:IAJle: :

# ~ CASE DISPOS 0 GRANTED 

# 0 CE IED SETTL E 0:R0 R I NCLUDES TR.ANS Fl:;R/Rl:ASSI GN NON-Fl NAL 0ISPOSITION G RAN TED IN PART SUBMIT ORO R FI0UC IARV AP POINTMENT

1s:zo:,a12015 COTRON EO, COSMO vs. OUTFRONT MIED IA SIGN ER
.ECTOR$ Motion N10. 009
9 of 9

### □ 0 11-IER**□** REFEIRE:NCE

P,1 9 e 9 of 9 

### [* 9]