Court Opinion

ID: 9960307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 21:07:56.91201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:21.859518
License: Public Domain

Butler v Marco Realty Assoc., LP
               2024 NY Slip Op 31230(U)
                     April 10, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 156776/2017
                Judge: Margaret A. Chan
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.
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:        HON. MARGARET A. CHAN                                 PART                             49M
                                                                        Justice
            -------------------X                                                  INDEX NO.         156776/2017
             LARONE BUTLER,
                                                                                                     06/02/2023,
                                              Plaintiff,                                             06/02/2023,
                                                                                                     06/02/2023,
                                                                                  MOTION DATE        06/02/2023
                                        -v-
             MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, LP., JAMES HUNT                                                005 006 007
             CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ALL-RITE CONSTRUCTION                        MOTION SEQ. NO.        008
             CO., INC., ALWAYS FIRST, INC., and QCC
             MAINTNENANCE INC.,                                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
                                              Defendants.                                 MOTION

            -------------------X

             MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, LP.                                                    Third-Party
                                                                                       Index No. 595506/2018
                                               Third Party Plaintiff,
                                         -against-
             ALWAYS FIRST, INC. and QCC MAINTENANCE INC.
                                                Third Party Defendants.
             ---------------·----X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005} 163, 164, 165, 166,
            167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,252,256,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,
            281,282,283,284,293,301,305,308,330
            were read on this motion to/for                                   JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 232, 233, 234, 235,
            236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,257,285,286,287,288,289,
            290,291,296,297,302,306,324,325,326,331,334,335,336,339,340,341,342,358,393,394
            were read on this motion to/for                            JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 195, 196, 197, 198,
            199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,
            220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,254,258,292,294,295,298,299,300,303,
            322,323,332,337,343,344,345,346,347,348,349,350,351,352,353,354,355,356,357,360,361,
            362,363,364,365,366,367,368,369,370,371,372,373,374,375,376,377,378,379,380,381,382,
            383,384,385,386,387,388,389,390,391,392
            were read on this motion to/for                            JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

            156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.                            Page 1 of 19
            Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 1]                                                        1 of 19
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 179, 180, 181, 182,
            183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,253,259,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,
            268,269,270,271,272,273,304,333,338,359
            were read on this motion to/for                            JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                   Plaintiff Larone Butler, an employee of defendant Always First, Inc. (Always
           First), was allegedly injured on November 22, 2016, when working on a construction
           project at 360 E. Fordham Road, Bronx County, New York, NY (the Project). This
           premises was owned by defendant Marco Realty Associates, L.P. (Macro Realty) and
           leased to defendant Old Navy, LLC (Old Navy). Old Navy's parent company the
           Gap, Inc. (the Gap) hired James Hunt Construction Co., Inc. (James Hunt) as
           general contractor for interior renovation. (James Hunt, Macro Realty, the Gap, Old
           Navy are referred to in this Order as "the building defendants.") James Hunt in
           turn subcontracted with QCC Maintenance Inc. (QCC) and Always First for
           demolition work. Meanwhile, Macro Realty also hired All-Rite Construction Co., Inc.
           (All-Rite) for demolition work.
                 This Decision and Order addresses motion sequences (MS) 005-008, where
           the parties move for summary judgment on (i) plaintiffs Labor Law§§ 200, 240 (1),
           and 241 (6) claims and negligence claim, and (ii) the building defendants' cross
           claims and third-party claims for contractual indemnification, breach of contract,
           and common law indemnification and contribution. All motions are opposed.
                                                   BACKGROUND
                 Plaintiff Larone Butler alleges that he was injured on November 22, 2016,
           while working on the Project (NYSCEF # 29 - verified amended compl. ,r 209). The
           Project was to build out and install interior finishes for Old Navy, a tenant in the
           subject building (NYSCEF # 189 - Hinton tr at 14).
           Parties' Relationships and Responsibilities
                  At the time on plaintiffs incident, James Hunt's site superintendent was Bill
           Hellbusch, who had the responsibility to oversee site safety and day-to-day
           construction activities (id at 19-20, 23, 25). James Hunt's senior project manager
           then was Richard Hinton, who usually visited the site every two to three weeks to
           check construction progress (id at 10, 21-22). James Hunt subcontracted with QCC
           for demolition work and hired Always First to supplement QCC's work, because
           certain work, such as rock breaking, went beyond QCC's capabilities (id at 25-27).
           QCC and Always First' work on the jobsite overlapped in time (id at 25).
                 Before James Hunt and its subcontractors started working on the Project,
           Macro Realty-the owner and landlord of the premises-engaged All- Rite as
           general contractor to "prep □ the shell of the building for Old Navy to take
           possession" (id at 28-30; NYSCEF # 246 - Zysman tr at 16). All-Rite was
           responsible for demolition and removal work, structural support work, and flooring

            156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.                         Page 2 of 19
            Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 2]                                                   2 of 19
                                                                                         INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            repairs (Hinton tr at 30; Zysman tr at 17). All· Rite subcontracted with other trades
            to "safe off electric" and "safe off all the plumbing'' (Zysman tr at 17, 21). All-Rite
            worked at the Project from the beginning of 2016 to July 2016 (id at 16, 29). During
            that period, a partner at All· Rite, Gregg Zysman, would visit the Project site about
            once a week to check any safety or quality issues (id at 22).
            Contractual Indemnification Clauses
                 James Hunt's contracts with Always First and QCC contained the same
            indemnification clause, which provided that:
                        4. 7 .1 Subcontractor shall defend, indemnify and hold General
                        Contractor forever harmless from and against any and all
                        claims . . . being filed or asserted against General
                        Contractor, Owner, Tenant, Landlord, the Premises,
                        Building, Property or Work, arising out of or in connection
                        with the Work of this Agreement or the breach by
                        Subcontractor of any term or condition of this Agreement.
                      4. 7.2 Subcontractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold
                      harmless General Contractor . . . from and against all claims
                      . . . asserted against . . . General Contractor by reason of (i)
                      injury to or death of any person, including, but not limited to,
                      employees of Subcontractor and/ or (ii) loss of or damage to
                      property arising out of or resulting from or attributable in
                      any way to any aspect of the performance of the
                      Subcontractors' work under this agreement, regardless of
                      whether or not such bodily injury, claim, damage, loss or
                      expense is caused in whole or in part by the negligence, gross
                      negligence, or willful act of Subcontractor or from breach of
                      this Agreement by Subcontractor.
            (NYSCEF #s 227, 228, § 4.7).
                  For both contracts, the term "General Contractor" meant James Hunt and
           the term "Owner, Tenant, or Landlord" meant the Gap (NYSCEF #s 227, 228 at 1).
           "Subcontractor" meant Always First and QCC respectively (id). For Always First's
           contract, "Work" was defined as rock breaking (NYSCEF # 227, § 8.2). For QCC,
           "Work" referred to demolition (NYSCEF # 228, § 8.2). According to the building
           defendants, James Hunt's contract with QCC included demolition drawings of the
           subject building along with demolition keynotes (NYSCEF # 386). One of such
           keynotes on the sub-cellar floorplan stated that "abandoned base building utility
           lines & piping at sub-cellar [were] to be removed in their entirety" (id at 1, n 22).
                 Marco Realty's contract with All-Rite contained no indemnification clause
           (NYSCEF # 230 at 1 ·3). But All·Rite's contract with its plumbing subcontractor
           Village Plumbing & Heating had an indemnification provision (id at 11).
            The Accident

            156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.                 Page 3 of 19
            Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 3]                                                   3 of 19
                                                                                       INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                  Plaintiff worked for Always First at the Project site and was primarily
            responsible for rock breaking work including "breaking the foundation and going
            down into the earth" and "making square holes in the ground" (NYSCEF # 174 -
            Butler tr at 35, 66). Plaintiff performed such work in the subcellar of the subject
            building about three days a week (id at 132·133).
                    On the day of the accident, November 22, 2016, plaintiff was instructed by
            his supervisor at Always First, Wilfredo Morales, to continue ground-breaking work
            in the sub-cellar (id at 73, 86·87). At the time, there were many pipes in the sub·
            cellar's ceiling (id at 117). At about s:oo a.m. that morning, plaintiff went down to
            the sub·cellar and saw a worker named David cutting a pipe with a sawzall in his
            hand while standing on a ladder (id at 67, 118·120, 140·142, 166). Plaintiff recalled
            that David was an African American male w horn plaintiff had observed taking
            instructions from James Hunt several times (id at 112, 127). After plaintiff saw
            David cutting the pipe, David "immediately stopped what he was doing to let
            [plaintiff] set up and occupy that workspace" (id at 114). This left the pipe partially
            cut and hanging off a hanger in the 12-feet high ceiling (id at 117·119, 142·143,
            146, 171). Plaintiff then started working on the floor of the sub-cellar, about six feet
            away from where David previously worked (id at 119, 166).
                    Around 10 a.m. that day, plaintiff was standing next to a hole that Always
            First was excavating in the ground, waiting for his turn to get into the hole (id at
            92·93, 100). As he waited, a silver pipe of about eight inches wide and ten feet long
            fell on plaintiff and hit his lower head and neck (id at 95, 99). After being hit,
            plaintiff looked up and saw that the pipe fell from "the slab" in the ceiling (id. at
            124). Plaintiff recognized that the pipe was the one that David previously worked on
            because the pipe appeared to be cut and "it [was] the only silver pipe that [was] up
            there in the ceiling" (id at 117·118, 166-167). Plaintiff then called Morales to report
            the accident (id at 100). Morales in turn informed Always First's owner Fabio
            Salazar of this incident (NYSCEF # 217 - Salazar tr at 29). Salazar testified that
            Morales told him the accident happened during plaintiffs lunch break (id.).
                    Plaintiff alleged that because of the accident, he suffered injuries in his
            cervical spine, lumber spine, and both shoulders (NYSCEF # 275 at 7·12). During
            his deposition, plaintiff testified that David worked for James Hunt because he saw
            David taking directions from James Hunt (Butler tr at 112, 127). However, Hinton
            from James Hunt testified that he was not familiar with a man named David
            working at the Project (NYSCEF # 216 - Hinton tr at 10, 57). Hinton further
            testified that, as shown in the demolition drawings and demolition keynotes, QCC
            was contractually required to demolish and remove the subject pipe (id at 59·60,
            66, BO; NYSCEF # 386 at 1, n 22). That said, Hinton recalled that on the day of the
            accident, there were no QCC employees working in the sub-cellar area (Hinton tr at
            63·64). QCC's president Anthony LaPuma also asserted that QCC had no employees
            by the name of David or any African American employees working on the Project
            (NYSCEF # 326 - LaPuma aff, ,r,r 5·6).

             15677612017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.              Page 4 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 4]                                                    4 of 19
                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                    When deposed, LaPuma testified that QCC had finished its work at the
            Project and left the jobsite on October 28, 2016, a month before the accident took
            place (NYSCEF # 222- LaPuma tr at 26, 31). Conversely, Hinton averred that the
            presence of the subject pipe at the site on the day of the accident indicated that
            QCC had not completed its work at the Project (Hinton tr at 81-82). And based on a
            document named GC Weekly Status Update, only 98% of demolition work was
            completed as of November 11, 2016 (NYSCEF # 349). To this, LaPuma testified that
            if a utility pipe was "live" or "hot," QCC's workers could have been instructed not to
            touch it and leave it for an electrician to remove (LaPuma tr at 22:15-25, 23=13·24).
            Procedural Historv
                   Plaintiff commenced this action in July 2017 (NYSCEF # 1) and filed an
            amended complaint in July 2018 (NYSCEF # 29). The amended complaint asserted
            a claim for negligence and claims under Labor Law§§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6)
            against all defendants (id). In James Hunt's answer to plaintiffs complaint, it
            asserted four cross claims against All-Rite (NYSCEF # 200 at 4-7), which are: (i)
            common law contribution, (ii) common law indemnification, (iii) contractual
            indemnification, and (iv) specific performance under contract. In addition, Marco
            Realty and James Hunt brought a third-party action against Always First and
            QCC, asserting claims for contractual indemnification, breach of contract, common
            law contribution and indemnification (NYSCEF # 25). Plaintiff filed the note of
            issue on April 5, 2023 (NYSCEF # 129).
                   In the instant motions (MS 005-008), plaintiff moves for partial summary
            judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the building defendants (MS
            008); all defendants countermove for summary judgment dismissing all plaintiffs
            claims (MS 005-007). The building defendants move for summary judgment on their
            contractual indemnification claims against All-Rite, Always First, and QCC (MS
            007). All-Rite, Always First, and QCC move for summary judgment dismissing all
            cross claims and third-party claims against them (MS 005-006). QCC's motion was
            filed as a cross motion to All Rite's summary judgment motion (NYSCEF #s 324·
                                              0

            326). All motions are opposed.
                                                      DISCUSSION
                   On a motion for summary judgment, evidence presented must be examined
            "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" (Schmidt v One New York
            Plaza Co. LLC, 153 AD3d 427, 428 [2017]). "It is well settled that 'the proponent of
            a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to
            judgment as a matter oflaw, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the
            absence of any material issues of fact'" (Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060, 1062
            [2016], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). "Failure to
            make such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the
            opposing papers" ( Winegrad v New York Univ. Med Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).
                  If the moving party makes this initial showing, the burden shifts to the
            opposing party to rebut the prima facie showing by producing evidentiary proof in
             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.            Page 5 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 5]                                                    5 of 19
                                                                                       INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            admissible form sufficient to require a trial of material issues of fact ( Cabrera v
            Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553·554 [1st Dept 2010]). Hearsay evidence may be
            utilized to raise a question of fact as long as it is not the only evidence submitted
            (Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp. v Credit Suisse, 89 AD3d 561, 564 [1st Dept
            2011]). In the presence of a genuine issue of material fact, a motion for summary
            judgment must be denied (see Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231
            [1978]; Grossman v Amalgamated Haus. Corp., 298 AD2d 224, 226 [1st Dept 2002]).
            Issues of credibility are for the fact finders to resolve, except in rare cases where
            testimony is "utterly incredible as a matter of law" (Price v City ofNew York, 172
            AD3d 625, 629 [1st Dept 2019]).
                   Here, as an initial matter, the building defendants rely on Price to argue that
            they are entitled to summary judgment dismissing all plaintiffs claims because
            plaintiffs testimony is incredible as a matter of law (id; NYSCEF # 197 - MS 007
            at 3·6). Such reliance is misplaced. The alleged inconsistencies in plaintiffs
            testimony are not irreconcilable, nor are they utterly incredible as a matter of law
            for being "manifestly untrue, physically impossible, or contrary to common
            experience" (Price, 172 AD3d at 629). Therefore, the court declines to grant the
            building defendants' motion for summary judgment on this ground.
                  Below, plaintiffs claims under Labor Law§§ 240 (1), 241 (6), 200, and
            common law negligence, as well as the building defendants' cross claims and third·
            party claims for contractual indemnification, breach of contract, and common law
            indemnification and contribution are addressed.
            I. Plainti.frs Claims Against the Building Defendants
            Labor Law §240 (1) Claim (MS 007. 008)
                   In MS 008, plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment in his favor on the
            Labor Law§ 240 (1) claim (NYSCEF # 182). In MS 007, the building defendants
            move for summary judgment dismissing this claim (NYSCEF # 197). Both motions
            are accompanied by expert affidavits (NYSCEF # 183 -pltfs expert aff and resume;
            NYSCEF #s 346, 347 defts' expert aff and resume) and are opposed by the other
            side (NYSCEF #s 261, 292). For the reasons below, plaintiffs motion for partial
            summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim (MS 008) is granted.
                    Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes an absolute and nondelegable duty on owners
            and contractors to provide certain safety devices, such as "scaffolding, ... pulleys,
            braces, irons, ropes" to protect a person performing labor work "in the erection,
            demolition, repairing, altering . . . of a building or structure" (Labor Law § 240 [1]).
            This statute was designed to protect workers from "harm directly flowing from the
            application of the force of gravity to an object or person" (John v Baharestan1: 281
            AD2d 114, 118 [1st Dept 2001]). Application of Labor Law§ 240 (1) is limited to
            "specific gravity-related accidents [such] as falling from a height or being struck by
            a falling object that was improperly hoisted or inadequately secured" (Ross v Curtis·
            Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 NY2d 494, 500·501 [1993] [internal quotation and
            citation omitted]). In other words, Labor Law§ 240 (1) does not apply unless the
             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.              Page 6 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 6]                                                    6 of 19
                                                                                       INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            injury is "directly attributable to a risk posed by a physically significant elevation
            differential" (Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 605 [2009]).
                   To prevail on summary judgment in a Labor Law § 240 (1) "falling object"
            case, an injured worker must demonstrate that "at the time the object fell, it either
            was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the
            undertaking" (Fabrizi v 1095Ave. ofAmericas, L.L.C., 22 NY3d 658,663 [2014]
            [internal citations and quotations omitted]). Plaintiff must also show that the object
            fell and injured the worker "because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device
            of the kind enumerated in the statute," such as ropes and pulleys (id; see Narducci
            v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268-269 [2001]; see Wl1inski v 334 E. 92nd
            Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 NY3d 1, 9 [2011]).
                   Here, plaintiff argues that the half-cut pipe hanging in the ceiling above the
            hole that plaintiff would excavate was an object that required securing for the
            purpose of plaintiffs undertaking (NYSCEF # 182 at 5, NYSCEF # 292, ,r,r 17, 19).
            Plaintiff relies on his expert witness Kathleen V. Hopkins's affidavit to contend that
            the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury was the lack of safety device such as stays
            and ropes securing the pipe to the ceiling (NYSCEF # 182 at 5, NYSCEF # 183 at 5).
                    Conversely, the building defendants assert that the subject pipe did not
            require securing because the pipe was part of the demolition project and "the
            provision of a safety device to prevent the pipe from being removed would have
            precluded that work" (NYSCEF # 197 at 15; NYSCEF # 261, ,r,r 24, 31; NYSCEF #
            346, ,r 11). As to the issue of proximate cause, the building defendants claim that "it
            was not foreseeable that this pipe would have fallen out of nowhere" (NYSCEF #
            197 at 15). Their expert witness Bernard P. Lorenz opines that "[pllaintiff cannot
            show why the pipe fell or that it fell due to a lack of a safety device" (NYSCEF #
            346, ,r 11). Additionally, the building defendants argue that the fall of the pipe did
            not involve a" 'physically significant' elevation differential" (NYSCEF # 197 at 15).
                   In falling object cases, courts have consistently held that objects several feet
            above the work area of injured workers require securing for purposes of the injured
            worker's undertaking (see Diaz v Raveh Realty, LLC, 182 AD3d 515 [1st Dept 2020]
            [falling plywood from the ceiling when being stripped off, hitting plaintiff who was
            working on the floor, was an object that required securing]; Gonzalez v Paramount
            Group, Inc., 157 AD3d 427, 428 [1st Dept 2018] [falling cinderblocks from above into
            hole below injured worker]; see also Stawski v Pasternack, Popish & Reif, 54 AD3d
            619, 620 [1st Dept 2008] [same]). Under these circumstances, the falling objects are
            also the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury (see Diaz, 182 AD3d at 516 ["plaintiffs
            injury was the foreseeable consequence of the risk of performing the task without
            any safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute"]; Humphrey v Park v'iew
            Fifth Ave. Assoc. LLC, 113 AD3d 558, 559 [1st Dept 2014] [finding that plaintiffs
            "testimony demonstrates that the [falling object] came from somewhere above
            plaintiff and was a proximate cause of his injuries"]).

             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.              Page 7 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 7]                                                    7 of 19
                                                                                       INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                   Applying these standards, plaintiff has established prima facie entitlement to
            summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Plaintiffs testimony
            demonstrates that he was hit in his lower head and neck by a partially cut pipe
            falling from the 12·foot·high ceiling of the sub·cellar while standing underneath the
            pipe, awaiting his turn to enter a hole on the ground to excavate it (see Butler tr at
            92, 95, 99, 171). Since plaintiff was required to work underneath the half-cut pipe
            hanging on the ceiling, the pipe required securing for the purpose of plaintiffs
            undertaking (see Diaz, 182 AD3d at 515·516).
                   The record indicates that the lack of securing of the pipe was the proximate
            cause of plaintiffs injury, which was a foreseeable consequence of the risks of
            leaving the pipe unsecured and hanging on the ceiling (see id; see also NYSCEF #
            183 at 5 [expert witness Hopkins opines that the failure to secure the pipe is the
            proximate cause of the accident]). Although the building defendants argue that
            plaintiff"cannot show why the pipe fell" (NYSCEF# 346, ,r 11), "plaintiff is not
            required to show the exact circumstances of the fall of the material" (Salcedo v
            Sustainable Energy Options, LLC, 190 AD3d 439,439 [1st Dept 2021]).
                   In opposition, the building defendants fail to raise an issue of fact precluding
            summary judgment in plaintiffs favor. The building defendants suggest that
            material inconsistencies exist in plaintiffs testimony that (i) he saw David cutting a
            pipe using a sawzall and that (ii) David stopped working when plaintiff came
            downstairs (NYSCEF # 261, ,r 4). However, these events can happen in close
            temporal proximity and are reconcilable. The building defendants also allege that
            plaintiff was inconsistent in first stating that David's ladder was right by the hole,
            and then testifying that the ladder was less than six feet away from the hole (id ,r
            6). These statements are not contradictory either. Other alleged inconsistencies
            raised by the building defendants, such as plaintiffs recollection about David's co·
            worker (id ,r,r 5, 7, 8) are not relevant for plaintiffs Labor Law 240 (1) claim.
                  The building defendants also question plaintiffs statement that he was
            working when hit by the pipe (NYSCEF # 261, ,r 19) because Salazar testified that
            he learned from Morales that plaintiff was on lunch break when the accident
            happened (Salazar tr at 29:8-13). However, this hearsay evidence may not be
            considered unless "it is not the only proof submitted," which is not the case here
            (Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp., 89 AD3d at 564). And even if plaintiff were on
            lunch break when being hit, he may still prevail on the Labor Law§ 240 (1) claim
            (see Morales v Spring Scaffolding, Inc., 24 AD3d 42, 48 [1st Dept 2005] [under some
            circumstances, "Labor Law§ 240 [1] applies to the lunch break accident"]).
                   The building defendants' contention that the half-cut pipe required no
            securing because it was part of a demolition project is unpersuasive. While
            "imposing liability for failure to provide protective devices to prevent the ... objects
            from falling, when their fall was the goal of the work, would be illogical" ( Wilinski,
            18 NY3d at 11), this is only true where the falling objects "were themselves the
            target of demolition when they fell' (id [emphasis added]), and the fall of the
            objects was "the goal of the demolition work being performed' (Abad v Brookfield
             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.               Page 8 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 8]                                                    8 of 19
                                                                                       INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            Properties OLP CO. LLC, 190 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2021] [emphasis added]). Here,
            the pipe did not fall when being cut or demolished In fact, halfway through cutting
            the pipe, David stopped the work and left the pipe hanging on the ceiling for two
            hours without securing it (see Butler tr at 67, 100, 114, 142·143). The goal of the
            demolition project was not for the pipe to fall two hours after it was partially cut.
            Thus, before the demolition work on the pipe was resumed, the pipe required
            securing under Labor Law§ 240 (1).
                   Also unavailing is the building defendants' assertion that the fall of the pipe
            did not involve a physically significant elevation differential. In a similar pipe·
            falling case, the Court of Appeals found that a physically significant elevation
            differential existed in a 4·foot fall "given the amount of force the pipes were able to
            generate over their descent" ( Wilinski, 18 NY3d 1, 2). Here, the pipe had fallen at
            least 4 feet before hitting plaintiff and was 8 inches wide and over 10 feet long,
            bigger than the 4 inches wide and 10 feet tall metal pipes in Wilinski (id at 5;
            Butler tr at 95, 171). Thus, the elevation differential in the case is not de minimis.
                  Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor
            Law § 240 (1) claim against the building defendants (MS 008) is granted. The
            branch of the building defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing
            plaintiffs Labor Law§ 240 (1) claim (MS 007) is denied.
            Labor Law §241 (6) Claim (MS 007)
                   In MS 007, the building defendants move for summary judgment dismissing
            plaintiffs Labor Law§ 241 (6) claim (NYSCEF # 197 at 10·13). Plaintiff opposes
            (NYSCEF # 292, ,r,r 43·53). For the reasons below, the building defendants' motion
            is denied to the extent that plaintiffs Labor Law§ 241 (6) claim is predicated on
            Industrial Code§ 23·3.3 (b) (3).
                   Labor Law§ 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors
            to provide reasonable and adequate protection for workers and to comply with
            specific safety rules set forth in the Industrial Code (see St. Louis v Town ofN
            Elba, 16 NY3d 411, 413 [2011]). To establish liability under Labor Law§ 241 (6),
            "[t]he particular [Industrial Code] provision relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate
            compliance with concrete specifications and not simply declare general safety
            standards" (Misicki v Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 515 [2009]).
                   Here, in support of his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, plaintiff initially alleges
            that the building defendants violated Industrial Code§§ 23·1.5, 23·1.7 (a) (1), 23·
            2.1, 23·2.3, 23·2.6, and 23·3.3 (NYSCEF # 202 - verified bill of particulars, ,r 5).
            Later, when opposing the building defendants' summary judgment motion
            dismissing this claim, plaintiff bases his Labor Law§ 241 (6) claim only on
            Industrial Code §§ 23·3.3 (b) (3) and (c) (NYSCEF # 292, ,r,r 43·53). In reply, the
            building defendants argue that plaintiff has abandoned his Labor Law § 241 (6)
            claim except for the branch that predicates on Industrial Code§§ 23·3.3 (b) (3) and
            (c) (NYSCEF # 376, ,r 37). To the extent that plaintiff fails to address previously
            raised Industrial Code violations, he is deemed to have abandoned that part of his
             15677612017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.               Page 9 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 9]                                                    9 of 19
                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (see Foley v Consol. Edison Co. ofNew York,. Inc., 84
            AD3d 476, 478 [1st Dept 2011]; see Kempisty v 246 Spring St., LLC, 92 AD3d 474,
            475 [1st Dept 2012]).
                   As to the remaining Code violation, it is undisputed that Industrial Code §§
            23·3.3 (b) (3) and (c)-which apply to demolition by hand-are sufficiently specific to
            support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (see Ortega v Everest Realty LLC, 84 AD3d
            542, 544 [1st Dept 2011D. Industrial Code§ 23·3.3 (b) (3) provides that "[w]alls,
            chimneys and other parts of any ... structure shall not be left unguarded in such
            condition that such parts may fall" (12 NYCRR 23·3.3 [b] [3]). Here, viewing the
            evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, plaintiffs testimony
            at least raises a question of fact that the building defendants have violated
            Industrial Code § 23·3.3 (b) (3) by leaving the partially cut pipe hanging on the
            ceiling in a condition that it may fall (see Wilinski, 18 NY3d at 12 [denying
            defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 [6]
            claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23·3.3 [b] [3] where plaintiff was hit by fallen
            metal pipes]; see also Ortega v Everest Realty LLC, 84 AD3d 542, 545 [1st Dept
            2011]).
                    Turning to Industrial Code§ 23·3.3 (c), this section requires "continuing
            inspections against hazards . . . created by the progress of the demolition work
            itself' (12 NYCRR 23·3.3 [c]). This provision only applies to hazards related to
            structural instability caused by the progress of the demolition, not hazards arising
            from the actual performance of the demolition work (Smith v New York City Haus.
            Auth., 71 AD3d 985, 987 [2d Dept 2010] [Industrial Code§ 23·3.3 [c] does not
            require "inspections of how demolition would be performed"]). Here, as in Smith, the
            subject pipe fell and injured plaintiff due to the actual performance of the
            demolition work, not structural instability caused by the progress of the demolition
            (see id; see Butler tr at 95, 140·141). Therefore, Industrial Code § 23·3.3 (c) does
            not apply to the facts of this case.
                  As such, the branch of the building defendants' motion for summary
            judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law§ 241 (6) claim (MS 007) is denied as to
            Industrial Code § 23·3.3 (b) (3) and otherwise granted.
            Labor Law ~200 and Negligence Claim (MS 007)
                   Labor Law§ 200 "is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an
            owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to
            work" (Singh v Black Diamonds LLC, 24 AD3d 138, 139 [1st Dept 2005] [internal
            citations omitted]). Liability under Labor Law § 200 may be based either upon (i)
            the means and method by which the work is performed or (ii) actual or constructive
            notice of a dangerous condition inherent in the premises (see McLeod v Corp. of
            Presiding Bishop of Church ofJesus Christ ofLatter Day Saints, 41 AD3d 796, 797
            [2d Dept 2007]; see also Mendoza v Highpoint Assoc., I4 LLC, 83 AD3d 1, 9 [1st
            Dept 2011]). A defendant has constructive notice of a hazardous condition on
            property "when the condition is visible and apparent and has existed for a sufficient

             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, LP.             Page 10 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 10]                                                  10 of 19
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            length of time to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity to discover and
            remedy it" (Grif.in v PMVRealty, LLC, 181 AD3d 912, 913 [2d Dept 2020]).
                  In the amended complaint, plaintiff asserts a Labor Law § 200 and common
            law negligence claim against the building defendants (NYSCEF # 205, ,r,r 207, 210·
            212,219). In MS 007, the building defendants move for summary judgment
            dismissing this claim arguing that they are not liable under Labor Law § 200
            because they did not supervise the injury producing work and they lacked actual or
            constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition relating to the pipe (NYSCEF
            # 197 at 6·10). Plaintiff disputes the latter point, asserting that the building
            defendants has failed to show that they lacked constructive notice of the hanging
            pipe because they have not produced evidence as to when the subject area was last
            inspected prior to plaintiffs accident (NYSCEF # 292, ,r,r 55·58).
                   On a defense motion for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 200
            and common law negligence claim based on a dangerous premises condition, the
            moving defendants have the initial burden to establish that they lacked
            constructive notice of the dangerous condition by evidence of when the site had last
            been inspected before the accident (Spencer v Term Fulton Realty Corp., 183 AD3d
            441, 443 [1st Dept 2020]). For this purpose, "[m]ere reference to general cleaning
            practices, with no evidence regarding any specific cleaning or inspection of the area
            in question, is insufficient to establish a lack of constructive notice" (Grif.in, 181
            AD3d at 913).
                    Here, the building defendants submit no evidence as to when the sub-cellar
            was last inspected before the accident, thus failing to establish a lack of
            constructive notice of the subject pipe that had been hanging for two hours before it
            fell (see Singh v Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc., 188 AD3d 506, 507 [1st Dept 2020]
            [defendants may have constructive notice on a dangerous condition that existed for
            two to three hours prior to plaintiffs accident]; see Trinidad v Turner Constr. Co.,
            189 AD3d 565, 567 [1st Dept 2020] [denying summary judgment dismissing a Labor
            Law§ 200 claim because evidence as to when the site was last inspected is
            lacking]). Although Hinton testified that Hellbusch occasionally conducted
            walkthroughs of the site (Hinton tr at 23), 1 this is insufficient to establish a lack of
            constructive notice because it only refers to James Hunt's general inspection
            practices not specific to the sub-cellar area (see Griffin, 181 AD3d at 913). Further,
            while the building defendants assert that they were not notified of any falling
            objects, and that there was no complaint about the subcellar (Butler tr at 168, 180;
            NYSCEF # 226, ,r 12; NYSCEF # 376, 1 47), this, at best, indicates a lack of actual
            notice, not constructive notice.
                 Accordingly, the branch of the building defendants' motion for summary
            judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law§ 200 and common law negligence claim
            (MS 007) is denied.

            1
                The building defendants cite to the wrong page of this deposition transcript (NYSCEF # 376, 1 48).
                156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, LP.                         Page 11 of 19
                Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 11]                                                     11 of 19
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            II. Plainti:B.'s Claims Against All-Rite, Always First, and QCC (MS 006, 006)
                  In addition to his claims against the building defendants, plaintiff asserts the
            same set of claims-common law negligence, Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241
            (6)-against AU-Rite, Always First, and QCC (NYSCEF # 29 at 36·37). In MS 005
            and 006, All-Rite, Always First, and QCC2 each moves to dismiss all of plaintiffs
            claims against them (NYSCEF #s 166,233, 325).
                   Plaintiff does not oppose All-Rite and Always First's motions (NYSCEF #s
            306, 308), and therefore is deemed to have abandoned his claims against All-Rite
            and Always First (see Genovese v Gambino, 309 AD2d 832, 833 [2d Dept 2003] [a
            claim is deemed abandoned if plaintiff did not oppose to defendant's motion for
            summary judgment dismissing the claim]). Plaintiff nevertheless opposes QCC's
            cross motion for summary judgment in its entirety, citing questions of fact as to
            QCC's role in the demolition of the subject pipe (NYSCEF # 358). The building
            defendants 3 and Always First also oppose QCC's cross motion, asserting that it was
            untimely filed, lacking in merits, and should be denied due to questions of fact
            (NYSCEF #s 339, 343).
                  As a gating issue, the timeliness of QCC's cross motion to AU-Rite's summary
            judgment motion is addressed first. Generally, courts deny untimely summary
            judgment motions without considering the merits unless good cause for delay is
            shown (see Brill v City ofNew York, 2 NY3d 648, 653 [2004]). As an exception,
            however, an untimely cross motion may be considered on its merits without a
            showing of good cause, if it addresses "nearly identical" issues in a timely filed
            summary judgment motion (see Connor v A.A1A Consulting Engineers PC, 213 AD3d
            483, 484 [1st Dept 2023], Iv to appeal dismissed in part, denied in part, 40 NY3d
            1088 [2024]; see also Kershaw v Hosp. for Special Surgery, 114 AD3d 75, 87 [1st
            Dept 2013]). For this purpose, it is essential that the subject motion is correctly
            labeled as a cross motion (see Kershaw, 114 AD3d at 87).
                    Here, QCC filed its cross motion on September 20, 2023 (NYSCEF # 325), five
            months after the note of issue was filed on April 5, 2023 (NYSCEF # 129). Without
            demonstrating any good cause for the delay, QCC claims that its untimely cross
            motion can be considered on the merits because it concerns "identical facts, issues
            and evidence" as raised in the summary judgment motions of All-Rite (NYSCEF #
            325, ,r 3). This is incorrect. "The problem ... is that [QCC's] motion, in addition to
            being untimely, is not a true cross motion" (see Kershaw, 114 AD3d at 87). A cross
            motion is one that is made "against the party who made the original motion,"
            namely, All-Rite (see id at 87·88; see CPLR 2215). But here, QCC's "cross motion"
            contains nothing against All-Rite, and is entirely directed at plaintiffs amended
            complaint and the building defendants' third-party complaint. Thus, QCC's "cross

            2
              QCC did not file its separate motion for summary judgment, it instead filed a cross motion in All·
            Rite's summary judgment motion (MS 006) (NYSCEF #s 325, 393).
            3
              The building defendants incorrectly filed their opposition to QCC's cross motion in MS 007, as
            opposed to MS 006.
             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, LP.                           Page 12 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 12]                                                   12 of 19
                                                                                      INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            motion" is in fact an untimely summary judgment motion, which, without good
            cause shown, should be denied without considering the merits (Kershaw, 114 AD3d
            at 88, 90 [declining to consider an untimely motion because "[a]llowing movants to
            file untimely, mislabeled 'cross motions' without good cause shown for the delay,
            affords them an unfair and improper advantage"]; see Brill, 2 NY3d at 653).
                   In any event, many issues and arguments raised in QCC's motion are not
            "nearly identical" to those raised by All-Rite in its timely motion. For example, QCC
            and All· Rite's arguments on the contractual indemnification claim rest on entirely
            different contract terms (NYSCEF #s 228, 230). On the negligence claim, QCC's
            motion raises different factual issues than All· Rite's motion, relating to QCC's duty
            to remove the specific pipe at issue as well as QCC's relationship with David
            (NYSCEF #s 233, 325).
                   As such, QCC's motion is denied as untimely, without consideration of its
            merits (see Crawford v 14 E. 11th St., LLC, 191 AD3d 461 [1st Dept 2021] [denying
            a mislabeled cross motion as untimely without considering its merits as it did not
            raise issues nearly identical to those raised in a timely motion]; see Rubino v 330
            Madison Co., LLC, 150 AD3d 603,604 [1st Dept 2017] [same]).
                  In sum, the branches of All· Rite and Always First's summary judgment
            motions dismissing plaintiffs claims against them (MS 005, 006) are granted.
            QCC's untimely "cross motion" in MS 006 is denied. Plaintiffs claims for common
            law negligence, Labor Law§§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) are dismissed against All·
            Rite and Always First, but not QCC.
            III. The Building Defendants' Contractual Indemnification Claims
                   The building defendants assert a claim for contractual indemnification
            against Always First and QCC in the third ·party complaint (NYSCEF # 25). They
            also assert this claim as a cross claim against All-Rite in their answer to plaintiffs
            complaint (NYSCEF # 200 at 5). In MS 007, the building defendants move for
            summary judgment on this claim against Always First, QCC, and All-Rite
            (NYSCEF # 195). In MS 005 and 006, Always First, QCC, and All-Rite move for
            summary judgment dismissing this claim (NYSCEF #s 166, 233, 325). As discussed
            above, QCC's cross motion in MS 006 is rejected as untimely. The court now
            examines the motions made by the building defendants, Always First, and All-Rite.
            Cross Claim Against All-Rite {MS 006. 007)
                   In MS 006, All· Rite moves for summary judgment dismissing the building
            defendants' contractual indemnification claim against it (NYSCEF # 233, ,r,r 13, 25·
            28). The building defendants oppose MS 006 (NYSCEF # 285, ,i,r 15·23) and in MS
            007 move for summary judgment on this claim in their favor (NYSCEF # 197 at 20).
                   Based on the record, the building defendants' cross claim for contractual
            indemnification against All-Rite fails. Contrary to the building defendants'
            allegation, the contract between All· Rite and Marco Realty-or at least the copy of
            the contract the parties submitted-did not contain clauses for All-Rite to indemnify

             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.             Page 13 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 13]                                                  13 of 19
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            Marco Realty (NYSCEF #s 230, 287). The indemnification provisions that the
            building defendants cite are in fact from All· Rite's contract with one of its
            subcontractors, Village Plumbing & Heating (NYSCEF # 230 at 11). 4 Those
            indemnification provisions required that Village Plumbing & Heating indemnify
            All·Rite "in the event an action is undertaken against [All· Rite] for violations of any
            governmental safety requirements by [Village Plumbing & Heating]" and are
            irrelevant to the building defendants' contractual indemnification claim against All·
            Rite (NYSCEF # 230 at 11). 5
                    Therefore, the branch of All-Rite's motion for summary judgment dismissing
            the building defendants' contractual indemnification claim (MS 006) is granted. The
            building defendants' competing motion for summary judgment on this claim against
            All· Rite (MS 007) is denied.
            Third·Partv Claim Against Alwavs First (MS 005, 007)
                  In MS 007, the building defendants move for summary judgment against
            Always First on the contractual indemnification claim (NYSCEF # 197 at 18·19).
            Conversely, in MS 005, Always First moves for summary judgment dismissing this
            claim (NYSCEF # 166 at 4·6). For the reasons below, both motions are denied.
                   The contract between Always First and James Hunt (NYSCEF # 227)
            contains an indemnification provision, which provides that Always First shall
            indemnify James Hunt for claims asserted against James Hunt "by reason of injury
            to ... any person ... arising out of or resulting from or attributable in any way to
            any aspect of the performance of [Always First's] Work under this Agreement,"
            regardless of whether Always First is at fault for causing such injury or breaching
            this contract with James Hunt (id.§ 4.7.2). This contract defined Always First's
            work thereunder to be rock breaking (id.§ 8.2).
                   The building defendants argue that plaintiffs injury arose out of his
            performance of Always First's work because plaintiff was injured when working for
            Always First to excavate the hole (NYSCEF # 197 at 18, NYSCEF # 360, ,r,r 19·24,
            34, 35). The building defendants add that they are entitled to contractual
            indemnification because they are not at fault for causing the accident (NYSCEF #
            197 at 19; NYSCEF # 225, ,r,r 3, 6·10; NYSCEF # 226, ,r,r 5, 8-13).
                  Always First counterargues that the indemnification provision at issue is
            void under General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-322.1 because it indemnifies the
            building defendants for their own acts of negligence (NYSCEF # 295 at 4; NYSCEF
            # 166 at 5). Further, "just because the pipe happened to fall on an Always First
            worker does not mean the accident arose out of Always First's work" (NYSCEF #
            295 at 5; NYSCEF # 166 at 5). Always First also claims, without citing any

            4
              All-Rite's purchase order and contract with Village Plumbing & Heating are pages 6 to 14 of
            NYSCEF Doc. No. 230. All-Rite's contract with Marco Realty are pages 1 to 3 of the same document.
            5
              Even assuming that these provisions could be read into All-Rite's contract with Marco Realty, the
            building defendants have not submitted any evidence that All·Rite violated any governmental safety
            requirements when working at the site.
                156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.                     Page 14 of 19
                Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 14]                                                     14 of 19
                                                                                      INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            evidence, that "the accident was entirely attributable to [James Hunt's] own acts
            and omissions," as James Hunt was responsible for overhead protection and
            supervising other trades' work (NYSCEF # 295 at 5; NYSCEF # 166 at 5·6).
                  As a preliminary matter, among the building defendants, only James Hunt
            can be entitled to summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim
            against Always First, because James Hunt is the only indemnitee under its contract
            with Always First (NYSCEF # 227; see Herrero v 2146 Nostrand Ave. Assoc., LLC,
            193 AD3d 421, 424 [1st Dept 2021]).
                  GOL § 5-322.1 voids any contract clauses that indemnify the owner and
            general contractor for their own acts of negligence (General Obligations Law § 5·
            322.1 [ID. If the owner or general contractor is partially negligent, a contract clause
            indemnifying them is void under GOL § 5-322.1, unless it contains savings
            language that provides for partial indemnity (see Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v
            Aetna Gas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786, 790, 794-796 [1997]). In contrast, if the owner
            or general contractor is not actively negligent, an indemnification provision without
            a savings clause does not violate GOL § 5-322.1 even if it contemplates full
            indemnity (Rhodes-Evans v 111 Chelsea LLC, 44 AD3d 430,434 [1st Dept 2007]).
                    Here, the indemnification clause between Always First and James Hunt
            contains no savings language and would have indemnified James Hunt even if it
            were negligent (NYSCEF # 227, § 4.7.2). Unlike Rhodes-Evans, the record here does
            not show that James Hunt is free of negligence as a matter of law (see Rhodes·
            Evans, 44 AD3d at 434). Specifically, questions of fact exist as to whether James
            Hunt had constructive notice of the pipe and whether James Hunt employed David
            who cut the pipe (see Butler tr at 67, 100, 112, 120, 127). If James Hunt is found to
            be negligent in any degree, its indemnity clause with Always First would be void
            under GOL § 5-322.1 (see Itri Brick & Concrete Corp., 89 NY2d at 794-796). Given
            these triable issues of fact, James Hunt's motion for summary judgment on this
            claim (MS 007) is denied. That said, the court also rejects Always First's allegation
            that James Hunt was wholly at fault as a matter of law because Always First fails
            to cite any evidence for this assertion. As such, Always First' s motion for summary
            judgment (MS 005) is likewise denied as to the contractual indemnification claim.
            Third·Partv Claim Against QCC (MS 007)
                   In MS 007, the building defendants move for summary judgment on their
            contractual indemnification claim against QCC (NYSCEF # 197 at 17). QCC
            opposes (NYSCEF # 322). James Hunt's contract with QCC required QCC to
            indemnify James Hunt for (i) claims "arising out of or in connection with the Work
            or this Agreement or the breach by [QCC] of any term or condition of this
            Agreement" (NYSCEF# 228, § 4.7.1) and (ii) claims asserted against James Hunt
            "by reason of injury to ... any person ... arising out of or resulting from or
            attributable in any way to any aspect of the performance of [QCC's] Work under
            this Agreement" (id§ 4.7.2). This contract defined QCC's work thereunder to be
            demolition (id, preamble,§ 8.2).

             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, LP.              Page 15 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 15]                                                 15 of 19
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                  The building defendants argue that QCC was contractually required to
            indemnify them because QCC was responsible for removing the subject pipe
            (NYSCEF # 382, ,i,i 11 ·13, 32, 33, 36, 37).6 They point to (i) Hinton's testimony
            affirming that QCC was responsible for removing the pipe that injured plaintiff
            (Hinton tr at 59), and (ii) the demolition keynote that was allegedly part of QCC's
            contract, which provided that "abandoned base building utility lines & piping at
            sub·cellar [were] to be removed in their entirety" (NYSCEF # 386, at 1, n 22).
                    In opposition, QCC argues that plaintiffs claim did not arise from QCC's
            work because no QCC employees were on site on the day of the accident (NYSCEF #
            322, ,i 4 [2]). QCC adds that the last day of its work at the Project site was October
            28, 2016 (NYSCEF # 326, ii 7; NYSCEF # 157 at 6·7 - QCC's worksheet and
            invoice). QCC points out that Hinton from James Hunt acknowledged that to the
            best of his knowledge, there were no QCC employees working in the sub·cellar on
            the day of the accident (Hinton tr at 63·64).
                    Applying the legal principles discussed above regarding Always First's
            liability for contractual indemnity, the court denies the building defendants'
            summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim against QCC.
            Questions of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs claim arose out of QC C's work
            because while the building defendants rely on the demolition keynote to argue that
            QCC was responsible for removing the subject pipe, they provide no evidence that
            QCC performed the work that injured plaintiff or was even on site that day. QCC's
            witness LaPuma testified that QCC had finished its work on October 28, 2016,
            about a month before the accident (LaPuma tr at 31:8-19). And James Hunt's
            witness, Hinton, confirmed that on the day of the accident, no QCC employees
            worked in the sub-cellar (Hinton tr at 63·64). Such record at least creates a question
            of fact as to whether plaintiffs injury arose out of QC C's work.
                   The building defendants apparently suggest that because QCC was once
            designated to remove the pipe, it is contractually required to indemnify James Hunt
            regardless of whether it performed the injury·producing work (NYSCEF # 382, ,i
            11). This argument is unpersuasive. The indemnification clause at issue covers
            claims "arising out of ... the Work ... or the breach by [QCC] of ... this
            Agreement" (NYSCEF # 228, § 4. 7.1). Reading the clause as a whole, this provision
            requires that QCC indemnify James Hunt for QCC's actions or omissions-not
            someone else's. Thus, assuming that certain work initially designated to QCC was
            later performed by another trade, QCC is not required under this contract to
            indemnify James Hunt for claims arising out of the other trade's performance of
            work.
                  Accordingly, the branch of the building defendants' summary judgment
            motion on the contractual indemnification claim against QCC (MS 007) is denied.

            6
              The building defendants' argument based on James Hunt's job detail report dated January 6, 2021
            is rejected because the building defendants never include any citation for this report, despite
            referring to it in their brief and expert's affidavit (NYSCEF # 382, ,r 37; NYSCEF # 383, ,i 18).
                156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.                   Page 16 of 19
                Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 16]                                                     16 of 19
                                                                                      INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            IV. The Building Defendants' Remaining Claims
            Third Partv Claims Against Alwa vs First and QCC (MS 005, 006)
                  In their third·party complaint, the building defendants raise claims for
            breach of contract as well as common law indemnification and contribution again" st
            Always First and QCC (NYSCEF # 25). Both Always First and QCC now move for
            summary judgment dismissing these claims (NYSCEF #s 166, 325). The building
            defendants oppose (NYSCEF #s 274, 343).
                   Initially, QCC's "cross motion" in MS 006 has been denied as untimely. In MS
            005, Always First does not address the building defendants' breach of contract claim
            (NYSCEF # 166). Thus, the building defendants claims' against QCC and their
            claim for breach of contract against Always First are not dismissed. Next, the court
            examines the building defendants' claims for common law indemnification and
            contribution against Always First.
                   In MS 005, Always First argues that the building defendants cannot
            maintain common law claims against it because plaintiff did not sustain a grave
            injury (NYSCEF # 166 at 2·4). In opposition, the building defendants contend that
            questions of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs injury constitutes a grave injury and
            allege that they are free from negligence and therefore can be entitled to common
            law indemnification (NYSCEF # 274, ilil 6-10).
                    Unless a worker sustains "grave injury," his or her employer cannot be held
            liable to third parties for common law indemnification and contribution claims on
            the worker's injuries within the scope of his or her employment (see Clavin v CAP
            Equip. Leasing Corp., 156 AD3d 404, 404 [1st Dept 2017]). For this purpose,
            "[i]njuries qualifying as grave are narrowly defined in Workers Compensation Law
            § 11," which means "death, permanent and total loss of use or amputation of an
            arm, leg, hand or foot, loss of multiple fingers, loss of multiple toes, paraplegia or
            quadriplegia, total and permanent blindness, total and permanent deafness, loss of
            nose, loss of ear, permanent and severe facial disfigurement, loss of an index finger
            or an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force resulting in
            permanent total disability" (Castro v United Container Mach. Grou]}; lnc., 96 NY2d
            398, 401 [2001]; Workers' Compensation Law§ 11).
                   Here, both the building defendants and Always First point to plaintiffs
            verified bill of particulars to argue whether the injuries at issue qualify as grave
            (NYSCEF # 275 at 7·12). The bill of particulars shows that plaintiff was injured on
            shoulders, lumbar spine, and cervical spine (id). These are not among the grave
            injuries enumerated in Workers' Compensation Law§ 11 (see Eldoh v Astoria
            Generating Co., L.P., 24 Misc 3d 1214W [Sup Ct 2007], affd sub nom. Eldoh v
            Astoria Generating Co., LP, 57 AD3d 603 [2d Dept 2008] [injuries to the cervical
            spine and shoulders do not constitute grave injuries]). Therefore, based on the
            record, plaintiff did not suffer a grave injury from the accident and thus Always
            First is entitled to summary judgment dismissing third·party claims for common

             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.             Page 17 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 17]                                                  17 of 19
                                                                                    INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

            law indemnification and contribution against it (see Hernandez v Seadyck Realty
            Co., LLC, 161 AD3d 711, 712 [1st Dept 2018]).
                   Accordingly, that branch of Always First's motion for summary judgment (MS
            005) is granted.
            Cross Claims Against All-Rite (MS 006)
                   The building defendants assert four cross claims against All·Rite: (i) common
            law contribution, (ii) common law indemnification, (iii) contractual indemnification,
            and (iv) specific performance under contract (NYSCEF # 200 at 4·7). In MS 006, All·
            Rite moves to dismiss all cross claims against it (NYSCEF # 233). The building
            defendants oppose on the common law indemnification and contribution claims and
            the contractual indemnification claim (NYSCEF # 285). Since the building
            defendants have not opposed on their claim for specific performance, they are
            deemed to have abandoned that claim (see Genovese, 309 AD2d at 833). Further, as
            discussed above, the building defendants' contractual indemnification claim against
            All·Rite fails. Now at issue are the building defendants' common law
            indemnification and contribution claims against All· Rite.
                    Both common law indemnification and contribution claims are predicated on
            a :finding of negligence on the proposed indemnitor or contributor (see Priestly v
            Monte.iore Med Ctr./Einstein Med Ctr., 10 AD3d 493, 495 [1st Dept 2004] [a
            common law indemnity claim requires proof of some negligence on the part of the
            indemnitor]; see Sommer v Fed Signal Corp., 79 NY2d 540, 550 [1992] [the
            availability of a contribution claim depends on the threshold issue of negligence]).
            To prevail on a negligence claim, it must be shown that there is "(1) a duty owed by
            the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately
            resulting therefrom" (Pasternack v Lah. Corp. ofAm. Holdings, 27 NY3d 817, 825
            [2016]). Ultimately, "the law draws a line between remote possibilities and those
            that are reasonably foreseeable" (Lee v New York City Haus. Auth., 25 AD3d 214,
            217 [1st Dept 2005], citing Di Ponzio v Riordan, 89 NY2d 578, 583 [1997]).
                   Under these standards, All·Rite has established prima facie entitlement to
            summary judgment dismissing the building defendants' common law
            indemnification and contribution claims against it. Both claims are predicated on
            All-Rite's active negligence, however, All-Rite had finished its work on the project
            site four months before the accident (Zysman tr at 29, 57). Any causal link between
            All-Rite's work and plaintiffs injury is tenuous. The November 2016 accident is a
            remote possibility not reasonably foreseeable to All-Rite when it completed its work
            in July 2016. As such, All-Rite was not actively negligent for the incident.
                   Accordingly, the building defendants' claims against All· Rite for common law
            indemnification and contribution are dismissed (see Higgins v TST 375 Hudson,
            L.L.C., 179 AD3d 508, 511 [1st Dept 2020] [dismissing common law indemnification
            and contribution claims against parties that were free from negligence]). That
            branch of All-Rite's motion for summary judgment (MS 006) is granted.

             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.           Page 18 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 18]                                                  18 of 19
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 156776/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/10/2024

                                                         CONCLUSION
                    For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
                   ORDERED that defendant All· Rite's motion for summary judgment
            dismissing all claims and cross claims against it (MS 006) is granted in its entirety;
            and it is further
                  ORDERED that plaintiffLarone Butler's motion for partial summary
            judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim is granted only as against defendants
            Marco Realty Associates, L.P., Old Navy, LLC, the Gap, Inc., and James Hunt
            Construction Co., Inc. (the Building Defendants) (MS 008); and it is further
                   ORDERED that the Building Defendants' motion for summary judgment (MS
            007) is denied in all respects except for plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim
            predicated on Industrial Codes other than§ 23·3.3 (b)(3); and it is further
                   ORDERED that defendant Always First's motion for summary judgment (MS
            005) is granted to the extent of dismissing plaintiffs complaint as against it and
            dismissing the Building Defendants' common law indemnification and contribution
            claims as against it, and Always First' s motion (MS 005) is otherwise denied as to
            the Building Defendants' contractual indemnification claim as against it; and it is
            further
                  ORDERED that defendant QCC Maintenance Inc.'s untimely summary
            judgment motion, incorrectly labeled as cross motion in MS 006, is denied without
            consideration of its merits, and no claims or third·party claims against QCC are
            dismissed.

                    04/10/2024                                                      . . , ~1/
                                                                                   -.
                      DATE                                                    MARGAR.ANJ.s-.-c-.- ,

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          □ DENIED      GRANTED IN PART         0    OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

             156776/2017 BUTLER, LARONE vs. MARCO REALTY ASSOCIATES, L.P.                        Page 19 of 19
             Motion No. 005 006 007 008

[* 19]                                                    19 of 19