Court Opinion

ID: 9962523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:09:52.752605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.151604
License: Public Domain

Ledonne v 450 Partners LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31359(U)
                     April 18, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 152279/2017
               Judge: Alexander M. Tisch
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.
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                                     INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                                  SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                            NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:             HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH                                            PART   18
                                                                                    Justice
           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          152279/2017
            ROBERT LEDONNE,
                                                                                                                      02/28/2023,
                                                        Plaintiff,                                                    02/28/2023,
                                                                                                   MOTION DATE        02/28/2023
                                               -v-
                                                                                                   MOTION SEQ. NO.    006 007 008
            450 PARTNERS LLC, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
            LIMITED INTERIORS GROUP, BROOKFIELD
            PROPERTIES DEVELOPER LLC, BROOKFIELD
            FINANCIAL PROPERTIES LP, BROOKFIELD
            PROPERTIES W 33RD GP LLC, BROOKFIELD                                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
            PROPERTIES W 33RD HOLDINGS LLC, BROOFIELD                                                       MOTION
            PROPERTIES W 33RD CO. L.P.,

                                                        Defendants.
           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            LIMITED INTERIORS GROUP                                                                           Third-Party
                                                                                                        Index No. 595434/2018
                                                         Plaintiff,

                                                -against-

            CONSENTINI ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                                         Defendant.
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 187, 188, 189, 190,
           191, 192,193,194, 195, 196, 197, 198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,209,210,213,216,219,
           220,221,222,223,224,225,245,246,251,252,254,256,259,260,265,266,267,270
           were read on this motion to/for                                       SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 155, 156, 157, 158,
           159,160,161, 162, 163,164,165, 166, 167,168,169,170,207,211,214,217,226,227,228,229,230,
           231,232,247,248,255,257,261,262,268
           were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 171, 172, 173, 174,
           175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183, 184, 185,186,208,212,215,218,233,234,235,236,237,
           238,239,240,241,242,243,244,249,250,253,258,263,264,269
           were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                                           Page 1 of 33

                                                                          1 of 33
[* 1]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by a field

           engineer on May 14, 2014, when, shortly after exiting an electrical room at a construction site

           located at 450 West 33rd Street, New York, New York (the Premises), a floor tile came loose

           and moved when he stepped on it, causing his foot to fall partway through to the concrete

           subfloor, approximately 12 to 18 inches below.

                   In motion sequence number 006, defendant Limited Interiors Group (Limited) moves,

           pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims as

           against it.

                   In motion sequence number 007, defendant Tishman Construction Corp. (Tishrnan)

           moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it.

                   In motion sequence number 008, defendants 450 Partners LLC (450 Partners), Brookfield

           Properties Developer LLC, Brookfield Financial Properties LP, Brookfield Properties W 33rd

           GP LLC, Brookfield Properties W 33rd Holdings LLC and Brookfield Properties W 33rd CO.,

           L.P. (collectively Brookfield) (together the Building Defendants), move, pursuant to CPLR 3212,

           for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and for summary judgment in

           their favor on their on their cross-claims against Limited.

                   In relation to each of the above motions, plaintiff cross-moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212,

           for summary judgment in his favor as to liability on his Labor Law§§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims

           as against all defendants.

                                                      BACKGROUND

                   On the day of the accident, the Premises was owned by 450 Properties and managed by

           Brookfield. Brookfield hired Limited to perform a gut demolition of the third floor of the

           Premises, including removal of the raised tile floor (the Limited Project). Separately, Brookfield

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                     Page 2 of 33

[* 2]                                                       2 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                              INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           hired Tishman, pursuant to a construction management agreement, to perform exterior and

           interior renovations of the Premises, including some renovations of the third floor (the Tishman

           Project). Tishman hired non-party Cosentini Associates (Cosentini) to provide electrical design

           services regarding the removal and installation of electrical service equipment at the Premises,

           including on the third floor. 1 Plaintiff was employed by Cosintini.

           Plaintiff's Deposition Testimony

                     Plaintiff testified that on the day of the accident, he was a field engineer for Cosentini.

           His duties included "surveying a new project, seeing what exists in the field ... mostly

           coordination when there's a job going up" (plaintiffs tr at 9; NYSCEF Doc. No. 195).

           Surveying a project entails inspecting a property in order to prepare electrical or plumbing

           drawings for the contractor in advance of construction work (id. at 10). Prior to the accident,

           plaintiff had been to the Premises four or five times, at Tishman's request, to determine electrical

           issues.

                     On the day of the accident, Tishman requested that plaintiff "get power for certain pieces

           of equipment" (id. at 25). Specifically, plaintiff was asked to determine whether the Premises

           had sufficient power to operate temporary construction equipment in advance of Tishman's

           construction (id. at 25). To make these determinations, plaintiff had to access an electrical room

           on the third floor of the Premises.

                     Plaintiff testified that the third floor was partially demolished, including portions of the

           flooring (id. at 28). The flooring consisted of "raised floors" (id. at 26) made up of tiles resting

           on four "stanches, one on each corner" (id. at 100). Part of the third floor's raised floor was

           demolished (id. at 35), exposing the "concrete slab underneath" and "some pipes or ... conduits"

           1
            Cosintini was a third-party defendant in this action. By decision and order, dated January 30, 2019, Cosintini was
           dismissed from this action.

               15227912017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                                 Page 3 of 33

                                                                 3 of 33
[* 3]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                   INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           (id. at 36). The undemolished portion of the raised floor led from the freight elevator to the

           electrical room (id. at 35).

                   Plaintiff testified that prior to the accident he had taken the freight elevator to the third

           floor, walked on the undemolished portion of the raised flooring, and entered the electrical room

           along with two coworkers. After performing his work, he left the electrical room and took four

           steps on the undemolished portion of the raised floor when, suddenly, his "right foot went down"

           through a tile (id. at 33). He later clarified that "the whole tile moved" when he stepped on it,

           causing his foot to drop through the raised floor and his knee to twist sideways (id. at 101).

           After his foot went through the raised floor, he fell to the ground. A coworker helped him back

           up and he continued working.

           Deposition Testimony of Jim Greco (Brookfield's Property Manager)

                   Jim Greco testified that at the time of the accident, he was a senior property manager

           employed by Brookfield. Brookfield is an owner and manager of commercial real estate (Greco

           tr. at 5; NYSCEF Doc. No. 196). At the time of the accident, it managed the Premises. 450

           Partners was the owner and is also a subsidiary of Brookfield (id. at 7). Greco was the property

           manager at the Premises. His duties included overseeing tenant relations and maintenance, and

           general coordination of trades, specifically "trades that [he] would call and give a contract to"

           (id. at 33).

                   Greco testified that at the time of the accident, Brookfield had hired Tishman as the

           general contractor for a major renovation project - the Tishman Project - that was underway at

           the Premises. It included replacing the "outer skin" of the entire building, roof work and tenant

           space work (id. at 7). Greco also testified that he was not involved with the Tishman Project (id.

           at 9), and that the Tishman Project did not involve the demolition on the third floor (id. at 44).

            15227912017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                         Page 4 of 33

                                                            4 of 33
[* 4]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   Greco testified that there was a separate demolition project on the third floor that he was

           involved with. He "bid that work out" to Limited (id. at 12). The demolition project on the third

           floor entailed removing all the "finishes from the prior tenant" including "[w]alls, floors, ceiling,

           furniture" (id. at 13). There were no plans to build out the empty space; a new tenant would

           design and build out the "raw space" before they moved in (id. at 13). Specifically, the

           demolition project included removing raised flooring and the plumbing and electrical conduit

           beneath it (id. at 25). The demolition would ultimately leave the concrete floor bare. Greco did

           not know why the subject raised tile floor had not been demolished by the time of the accident

           (id. at 42).

                   At his deposition, Greco was shown a copy of a purchase order between 450 Partners and

           Limited and confirmed that it was the purchase order related to the demolition of the third floor

           (the Purchase Order) (see Building Defendants' notice of motion, exhibit M; NYSCEF Doc. No.

           186. Greco also confirmed that he signed the purchase order. He also testified that Limited

           served as the general contractor for the demolition project (id. at 24).

           Deposition Testimony of Salvatore Falciglia (Tishman 's Project Director)

                   Salvatore Falciglia testified that on the day of the accident, he was Tishman's project

           director and a vice president of the company. His duties as a project director included managing

           daily aspects of construction and being a point of contact between the owner and Tishman.

                   Falciglia was familiar with raised flooring, explaining that raised flooring is typically

           used to allow for wires and pipes to run underneath the flooring. The tiles were typically metal

           and secured to an "interlocking system, usually like a channel system that creates the rectangle or

           square" that the tile will rest in (Falciglia tr at 8; NYSCEF Doc. No. 197).

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                       Page 5 of 33

[* 5]                                                       5 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                    INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   Falciglia worked on the Tishman Project. He explained that Tishman was hired to

           remove the exterior fa<;:ade, upgrade and redesign the lobby, upgrade elevators, mechanical and

           electrical systems, create public spaces and redesign storefronts (id. at 9). Preconstruction began

           in 2013. Actual construction did not start until "late summer, early fall of 2014," several months

           after the accident (id. at 10).

                   Falciglia reviewed a construction management agreement between Tishman and

           Brookfield, and confirmed it related to the Tishman Project (the Tishman/Brookfield

           Agreement). He acknowledged that it was dated July 18, 2014 (id. at 12). Falciglia also noted

           that, under the Tishman/Brookfield Agreement, Tishman's work included work in mechanical

           and electrical rooms on the third floor (id. at 17). Falciglia also testified that, at the time of the

           accident, Tishman's work was limited to "pre-construction services, bidding, estimating,

           logistics, drawing reviews, etcetera" (id. at 19).

                   Tishman did not perform any demolition work on the third floor at the time of the

           accident. The demolition was "a Brookfield operations through another entity who was doing

           interior demolition on the third floor, not anything to do with Tishman" (id. at 18). Falciglia also

           testified that Tishman did not supervise or provide safety oversight regarding the demolition

           work on the third floor (id. at 29, 42). Finally, Falciglia testified that Tishman did engage in

           limited demolition on the third floor, such as boring holes between floors to facilitate installing

           new risers, but "by the time [Tishman] started, the previous contractor [had] finished the

           demolition" of the third floor (id. at 41 ).

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                         Page 6 of 33

[* 6]                                                       6 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                  INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           Deposition Testimony of Salvatore Alagna (Limited's President)

                   Salvatore Alagna testified that at the time of the accident, he was the president of

           Limited, an interior demolition company (Alagna tr at 5; NYSCEF Doc. No. 198). He confirmed

           that Brookfield hired Limited for the Limited Project, which entailed the demolition of the third

           floor of the Premises (id. at 66). Specifically, Limited was hired to demolish the third floor

           "from slab to slab, everything had to go ... ceiling, flooring, walls" (id. at 24). The exception

           was the electrical closets. Limited did not "touch anything in the electrical closets" (id. at 25).

           Further, Limited had no contact or relationship with Tishman (id. at 70).

                   The Limited Project included demolition of "computer flooring" - a type of raised

           flooring that allows for electrical conduits and piping to run underneath it (id. at 34). Even

           though the agreement between Limited and Brookfield called for the removal of all flooring,

           Brookfield required Limited to leave the flooring "outside the electric closet" intact (id. at 35-

           36). That area was cordoned off with caution tape. Algana did not know who put up the caution

           tape.

                   Finally, Alagna testified that he was unsure whether, at the time of the accident, Limited

           had finished its work (id. at 64).

           Deposition Testimony of Manuel Moreno (Limited's Foreman)

                   Manuel Moreno testified that on the day of the accident, he was Limited's foreman on the

           Limited Project. His duties included directing and supervising Limited's workers (Moreno tr at

           8; NYSCEF Doc. No. 199). Moreno testified that he did not have any training in how to remove

           raised flooring, but he learned how to do so on several occasions prior to the Project (id. at 24).

                   The job proceeded normally - first the ceilings were demolished, then the walls, and

           finally the floors were removed. The floor removal consisted of removing the floor tiles, as well

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                       Page 7 of 33

[* 7]                                                       7 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                   INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           as the conduits and plumbing beneath them (id. at 43). He was not told to keep any portion of

           the flooring intact at the time Limited began removing the floor (id. at 43). No one from "the

           building" directed his work (id. at 50, 58). He also never saw or interacted with any Tishman

           employees at the Premises.

                  As part of his job, Moreno inspected the floor as it was being removed and did not find

           anything wrong or unsafe about the remaining flooring as it was demolished (id. at 51 ).

                  Moreno was unaware of the accident. He learned of it only the day before his deposition

           and did not know any of the specifics of how it happened.

           Deposition of Michael Lillis (Brookfield's Mechanical Supervisor)

                  Michael Lillis testified that on the day of the accident, he was the mechanical supervisor

           for Brookfield at the Premises. His duties included overseeing the building engineers and to be a

           point of contact for Brookfield (Lillis tr at 14; NYSCEF Doc. No. 200).

                  Lillis was present at the initial walkthrough with Limited. He testified that, at the

           walkthrough, he or Greco informed Limited that removal of the raised flooring was part of the

           job. Lillis also testified that the Limited Project required a six-to-eight-foot-wide portion of the

           raised floor to be left intact "in order to be able to walk around the floor and get to the four

           electric closets, and to the tenant's space" (id. at 33). This specification was not written in the

           contract, but it was discussed at the walkthrough (id. at 34). Ultimately, that part of the floor

           would also be removed.

                  Lillis generally oversaw the Limited Project and monitored its progress. He was present

           at the Premises every day during demolition. He walked the site daily along with the building's

           chief engineer (id. at 39) and observed the Limited Project's progress (id. at 58). He never

           observed Limited's work, as Limited worked during the night. Lillis also testified that

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                        Page 8 of 33

[* 8]                                                       8 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           Brookfield did not direct or supervise Limited's work (id. at 57). Further, Lillis testified he did

           not inspect for safety as "that was Limited's responsibility" (id. at 40).

                   Finally, Lillis testified "no" when asked whether there was "any type of employees

           employed by Brookfield that would perform inspections on any type of regular basis" of

           Limited's work (id. at 57). He further confirmed that no one employed by Brookfield "would

           inspect or evaluate the quality of Limited's work" on a regular basis (id. at 58).

           Affidavit of Joseph Danatzko, P.E. (Limited's Expert)

                   Joseph Danatzko states he is an engineering consultant licensed in the State of New York.

           He also states he reviewed the pleadings and depositions in this matter and based his opinion

           thereon. He notes he did not have the ability to inspect the subject floor tile as it had been

           demolished.

                   He opines that the subject floor tiles were properly secured because they were "fastened

           with screws at the time of the incident and secured with a mastic cement to a concrete subfloor

           below" (Danatzko aff, at 5; NYSCEF Doc. No. 204). He opines that there is nothing in the

           documents he reviewed that would indicate that the subject floor tile that collapsed under

           plaintiff had been worked on by Limited or otherwise "made structurally unstable by the

           demolition activity performed by Limited" (id. at 5).

           Affidavit of Robert Fuchs, M.S.M.E, P.E., DFE, CFEI, CSP (Plaintiff's Expert)

                   Robert Fuchs states that he is a professional engineer, licensed in the State of New York.

           He reviewed the pleadings and depositions in this matter and based his opinion thereon. He

           noted that the subject raised flooring was originally constructed in accordance with the New

           York City Building Code and was capable of supporting a load of 2000 pounds.

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                      Page 9 of 33

                                                            9 of 33
[* 9]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 PM]                                                INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   Based on that, Fuchs opined that the flooring should not have collapsed under plaintiffs

           weight and, therefore, the system must have been "improperly supported, inadequately braced, or

           otherwise made unstable by the demolition activity within the third floor space" (Fuchs aff, Jr 13;

           NYSCEF Doc. No. 221 ). He also opined that "during the demolition work the screws that

           fastened the floor panels to the underlying support pedestals may have been removed, thereby

           rendering the remaining floor panels susceptible to movement" (id., Jr 13 ).

                   Fuchs further opined that "the partial removal of the flooring system increased the

           potential for eccentric (off-center) loads and/or inadequate lateral restraint of the portion of the

           floor that remained, thereby increasing the risk for instability and failure" (id., Jr 13). Finally, he

           opined that, had there been bracing or supports, the flooring would not have collapsed and

           "plaintiff's accident would not have occurred" (id., Jr 17).

                                                       DISCUSSION

                   "[T]he proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of

           entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the

           absence of any material issues of fact. Failure to make such prima facie showing requires denial

           of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,

           68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986] [internal citations omitted]). "Once this showing has been made, the

           burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient

           to establish the existence of material issues of fact that require a trial for resolution" (Giuffrida v

           Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72, 81 [2003]). "[I]t is insufficient to merely set forth averments of

           factual or legal conclusions" (Genger v Genger, 123 AD3d 445,447 [1st Dept 2014], quoting

           Schiraldi v US. Min. Prods., 194 AD2d 482,483 [1st Dept 1993]). If there is any doubt as to

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                        Page 10 of 33

[* 10]                                                      10 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                              INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           the existence of a triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied (Rotuba

           Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 [1978]).

           The Labor Law§ 240 (1) Claims (Motion Sequence Numbers 006, 007, 008, and PlaintifFs
           Cross-Motions)

                   Limited, Tishrnan, and the Building Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing

           the Labor Law § 240 (I) claim as against them. Plaintiff cross-moves as against each defendant

           for summary judgment in his favor on the same claim.

                           Labor Law § 240 (1 ), known as the Scaffold Law, provides as relevant:
                           "All contractors and owners and their agents . . . in the erection,
                           demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a
                           building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished
                           or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists,
                           stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes,
                           and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated
                           as to give proper protection to a person so employed."

                   Labor Law § 240 (1) "imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide

           devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to those

           individuals performing the work" (Quiroz v Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases, 202

           AD3d 601, 604 [1st Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). It "was

           designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold ... or other protective device

           proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application

           of the force of gravity to an object or person"' (John v Baharestani, 281 AD2d 114, 118 [1st

           Dept 2001], quoting Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501 [1993]).

                   The absolute liability found within section 240 "is contingent upon the existence of a

           hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety

           device of the kind enumerated therein" (O'Brien v. Port Auth. ofNY & NJ, 29 NY3d 27, 33

           [2017] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). In addition, Labor Law§ 240 (1) "must

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                               Page 11 of 33

                                                            11 of 33
[* 11]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           be liberally construed to accomplish the purpose for which it was framed" (Valensisi v Greens at

           Half Hollow, LLC, 33 AD3d 693, 695 [2d Dept 2006] [internal citations omitted]).

                   That said, not every worker who is injured at a construction site is afforded the

           protections of Labor Law § 240 ( 1), and "a distinction must be made between those accidents

           caused by the failure to provide a safety device ... and those caused by general hazards specific

           to a workplace" (Makarius v Port Auth. ofN.Y & N. J, 76 AD3d 805,807 [1st Dept 2010];

           Buckley v Columbia Grammar & Preparatory, 44 AD3d 263,267 [1st Dept 2007] [section 240

           ( 1) "does not cover the type of ordinary and usual peril to which a worker is commonly exposed

           at a construction site"). Instead, liability "is contingent upon the existence of a hazard

           contemplated in section 240 ( 1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the

           kind enumerated therein" (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001 ]).

                   Therefore, to prevail on a Labor Law § 240 ( 1) claim, a plaintiff must establish that the

           statute was violated, and that this violation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries

           (Barreto v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 25 NY3d 426, 433 [2015]).

                   As an initial matter, Limited and Tishman argue that they are not proper Labor Law

           defendants, such that liability under the Labor Law would not apply to them.

                   Limited

                   Limited argues that it is not a proper Labor Law defendant as it was neither an owner or

           general contractor, nor an agent of either for the purposes of the Labor Law.

                           "When the work giving rise to these [Labor Law] duties has been
                           delegated to a third party, that third party then obtains the
                           concomitant authority to supervise and control that work and
                           becomes a statutory 'agent' of the owner or general
                           contractor. Only upon obtaining the authority to supervise and
                           control does the third party fall within the class of those having
                           nondelegable liability as an 'agent' under sections 240 and 241."

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                 Page 12 of 33

                                                            12 of 33
[* 12]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           (Russin v Louis N Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 318 [ 1981 ]; see also Nascimento v

           Bridgehampton Constr. Corp, 86 AD3d 189, 193 [1st Dept 2011] [an entity becomes a statutory

           agent under the Labor Law when it has been "delegated the supervision and control either over

           the specific work area involved or the work which [gave] rise] to the injury"] internal quotation

           marks and citation omitted]).

                   Limited is not an owner or general contractor. However, Limited is the entity responsible

           for the demolition of the entirety of the subject raised floor. Brookfield, acting on behalf of 450

           Properties, by the Purchase Order, delegated to Limited the supervision and control over that

           specific demolition work.

                   While Limited argues that it did not have any authority over plaintiff or plaintiff's work,

           that is not the focus of the agent analysis. The relevant inquiry is whether Limited had authority

           over the injury producing work- here alleged to be the demolition of the raised flooring (see e.g.

           Lazarou v Turner Constr. Co., 18 AD3d 398,399 [1st Dept 2005] [determining agency pursuant

           to Labor Law§ 240 (I) based on whether an entity had "control over the injury-producing

           work"]). Based on the above information, the record establishes that Limited was an agent of the

           Building Defendants and, therefore, it is a proper Labor Law defendant.

                   Tishman

                   Tishman argues that it is not a proper Labor Law defendant because the injury producing

           work- the demolition of the third floor's raised floor that purportedly caused plaintiff's accident

           - was outside the scope of its contract with the Building Defendants. Specifically, Tishman

           argues that it was a construction manager for the Tishman Project, which did not encompass the

           demolition of the third floor's floor. That demolition was a part of the Limited Project, which

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                Page 13 of 33

                                                           13 of 33
[* 13]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           was controlled by the Building Defendants directly. Therefore, Tishrnan contends that it had no

           authority to supervise or control the injury producing work or to oversee the safety of that area.

                     "Where a party had no authority to supervise or control the activity that caused the

           plaintiffs injury, that party may not be held liable" under Labor Law§§ 240 (1) or 241 (6)

           (Balthazar v Full Circle Constr. Corp., 268 AD2d 96, 98 [1st Dept 2000] citing Filchukv Lehrer

           McGovern Bovis Constr., 232 AD2d 329,330 [1st Dept 1996] [general contractor not liable

           where the injury producing work was not performed by the contractor's employees or its

           subcontractors]). "[I]f the work leading to the accident is outside the scope of what is contracted

           for, there is no right of control on the part of the contractor and thus no liability under [Labor

           Law§§ 240 (1) and 241 (6)]" (Butt v Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc., 47 AD3d 338, 341 [1st Dept

           2007]).

                     There is no dispute in the testimony that Tishman had no authority to supervise or control

           the demolition of the raised floor. Falciglia, Tishman's project director, testified that the

           demolition of the floor was "a Brookfield operation through another entity who was doing

           interior demolition on the third floor" (Falciglia tr at 18) and that such demolition did not have

           "anything to do with Tishrnan" (id. at 18). Similarly, Greco, Brookfield's property manager,

           testified that Tishman's work did not involve the demolition of the third floor's raised floor

           (Greco tr at 44). Rather, Greco testified that he, on behalf of Brookfield, "bid that work out" to

           Limited (id. at 12). Also, Lillis, Brookfield's mechanical supervisor, testified that he and Greco

           provided Limited with their work scope and parameters (Lillis tr at 33-34). In addition, Alagna,

           Limited's principal, testified that Brookfield hired Limited to demolish the third floor "from slab

           to slab, everything had to go ... ceiling, flooring, walls" (Alagna tr at 24), and Moreno,

           Limited's foreman, confirmed that he directed Limited's demolition work.

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                       Page 14 of 33

                                                           14 of 33
[* 14]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   In opposition, plaintiff argues the Tishrnan/Brookfield Agreement (plaintiff's notice of

           cross-motion, exhibit 3, NYSCEF Doc. No. 231) delegated a general authority to Tishman to

           correct any defective work at the Premises, citing several sections within article 4 of that

           agreement. Those sections provide as follows:

                           "4.1 Scope of Services

                           "4.1.1 The Construction Manager shall administer, manage,
                           supervise, direct, coordinate and cause the proper and efficient
                           performance and furnishing, through Subcontractors or its own
                           forces, of all work, labor, materials, equipment, tools and General
                           Conditions Work required for the complete construction and/or
                           installation of the Project"

           (id. at 15),

                           "4.11 Performance of Work; Correcting Defective Work

                           "4.11.1 [Tishman] shall observe, monitor, oversee and supervise
                           the Work so that it is performed in accordance with the
                           requirements of the Contract Documents ... "
           (id. at 23).

                   The term "Work" as discussed in section 4.1 is a defined term. "Work" encompasses "all

           work and other Services required to be performed by [Tishman] under the Contract Documents,

           and includes all labor, materials, equipment and services to be provided by [Tishrnan] under the

           terms of this Agreement to complete the Project" (id., Article 1, p. 11). Further, as noted above,

           the uncontroverted testimony establishes that Tishman's "Project" did not involve the demolition

           work on the third floor.

                   Tishrnan is not an owner, and contractually, it was not a general contractor for Limited's

           demolition work on the third floor of the Premises. Further, there is no evidence that Tishman

           was delegated supervision or control over that demolition. Therefore, it was not an agent of the

           Building Defendants with respect to that work (see Nascimento, 86 AD3d at 193).

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                      Page 15 of 33

[* 15]                                                     15 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                    INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   Tishman has established, primafacie, that it is not a proper Labor Law defendant with

           respect to the subject accident, and plaintiff has failed to raise a question of fact as to this issue.

           Therefore, this Court grants Tishman summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law§§ 240 (1)

           and 241 (6) claims as against it (see Butt, 47 AD3d at 341), and denies plaintiff summary

           judgment in his favor on the same claims.

                   Turning to the substance of the section 240 (1) claim with respect to the remaining

           defendants, plaintiff's accident occurred when, while walking on raised floor tiling, a tile

           unexpectedly came loose, moved, and caused his foot to fall through the opening created by the

           shifted tile.

                   The facts presented here are similar to those found in Romeo v Property Owner (USA)

           LLC, 61 AD3d 491 (1st Dept 2009), a case relied upon by defendants in their motions. In

           Romeo, the plaintiff was walking on completed raised flooring when he stepped on a "floor tile

           that suddenly and unexpectedly dislodged, causing his right foot to fall through the two-foot-by-

           two-foot opening created by the missing tile and strike the concrete subfloor 18 inches below"

           (id. at 491 ). That court, in dismissing the section 240 (1) claim, held that "walking on the

           permanent floor did not involve an elevation-related hazard of the type contemplated by the

           statute and did not necessitate the provision of the type of safety devises set forth in the statute"

           (id. at 491). Defendants argue that, in light of Romeo, plaintiff's accident falls outside the scope

           of section 240 (1 ), and that claim should be dismissed.

                   In opposition and in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argues

           that rationale set forth in Romeo cannot apply (and should not remove plaintiff's accident from

           the scope of section 240 [1]) because the subject floor was not a "permanent floor." Plaintiff

           argues that, because the floor was slated for demolition and a separate portion of the floor was

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                    Page 16 of 33

[* 16]                                                     16 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                   INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

            demolished prior to the accident, the once permanent floor became a temporary floor. Temporary

            flooring may fall within the ambit of protections provided for by section 240 (1) (see e.g.

            Robertti v Powers Chang, 227 AD2d 542, 542-543 [2d Dept 1996] [collapse of temporary floor,

            exposing a hole that plaintiffs leg fell through was within the scope of section 240 (1)]).

                    In reply, defendants argue that there is no evidence in the record that any demolition

           work had been done on or within several feet of the subject floor tile or that the tile had in any

            way been altered or undermined.

                    After reviewing the record, this Court agrees. The record does not establish the exact

            location of the accident. There is no testimony that the accident occurred adjacent to the

            demolished area or that the subject floor tile had been undermined or otherwise unsecured from

            its pedestals by Limited. Plaintiffs expert testimony that "screws that fastened the floor panels

            to the underlying support pedestals may have been removed" (Fuchs aff, Jr 13) is speculative and

            insufficient to establish that the floor in the area of plaintiffs accident had been subject to any

            actual demolition work (Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 [2002] ["Where

            the expert's ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation, ...

            the opinion should be given no probative force"]). While plaintiffs expert opines that removing

           tiles could cause the tile system to lose its lateral support (Fuchs aff, Jr 13 ), there is no evidence

            that the subject tile shifted because it lost lateral support.

                    Further, plaintiffs argument that the subject raised floor became temporary because it

           was slated for demolition at a future time is unavailing as it is unsupported by any caselaw

            supporting this assertion. Moreover, accepting plaintiffs assertion would create an excessively

           overbroad definition of the term "temporary" as meaning any portion of a building slated for

           demolition at a later time.

             152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                        Page 17 of 33

[* 17]                                                      17 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   Finally, plaintiffs argument that the Court should treat the subject floor as akin to a

           raised rebar lattice, which has been held to create an elevation related hazard, is unpersuasive

           given the accident location (see Brown v 44 th St. Dev., LLC, 48 Misc 3d. 234, 236 [Sup Ct, NY

           County 2015], affd 137 AD3d 703 [1st Dept 2016] [holding that section 240 (1) applied where

           the plaintiff was required to walk on "a steel tightrope" of rebar because "there were no planks or

           anything else laid down to walk on"]). Specifically, the lattice ofrebar, described in Brown as

           steel bars approximately 12 inches apart and five-eights of an inch wide with spaces "a foot or

           more wide in all directions" (id. at 237), is in no way analogous to the tile floor present here.

                   Given the foregoing, plaintiffs accident does not fall within the scope of Labor Law

           § 240 (1) (Romeo, 61 AD3d at 491 ). Therefore, the Court grants Limited and the Building

           Defendants summary judgment dismissing the section 240 (1) claims against them, and denies

           plaintiff summary judgment in his favor on the same claims.

           The Labor Law§ 241 (6) Claims (Motion Sequence Numbers 006, 007, 008 and Plaintiffs
           Cross-Motions)

                   Limited, Tishman and the Building Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing

           the Labor Law § 241 ( 6) claims against them. Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment in

           his favor on the same claims.

                   As an initial matter, as discussed above, Tishman is not a statutory agent under the Labor

           Law. For the reasons discussed above, this Court also grants Tishman summary judgment

           dismissing the Labor Law § 241 ( 6) claim as against it (Russin, 54 NY2d at 318).

                   Labor Law § 241 ( 6) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

                           "All contractors and owners and their agents, ... when constructing
                           or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection
                           therewith, shall comply with the following requirements:
                                                             ***

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                 Page 18 of 33

[* 18]                                                     18 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                                INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                              (6)    All areas in which construction, excavation or demolition
                                      work is being performed shall be so constructed, shored,
                                      [and] equipped ... as to provide reasonable and adequate
                                      protection and safety to the persons employed therein or
                                      lawfully frequenting such places."

                     Labor Law§ 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty ofreasonable care upon owners and

           contractors "'to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety' to persons employed in,

           or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being

           performed" (Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 348 [1998]; see also Ross v

           Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 NY2d at 501-502).

                      To sustain a Labor Law§ 241 (6) claim, it must be established that the defendant violated

           a specific, "concrete" implementing regulation of the Industrial Code, rather than a provision

           containing only generalized requirements for worker safety (Ross, 81 NY2d at 505). Such

           violation must be a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries (Yaucan v Hawthorne Vil., LLC,

           155 AD3d 924, 926 [2d Dept 2017] ["a plaintiff must demonstrate that his or her injuries were

           proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code regulation that is applicable to the

           circumstances of the accident"]; see also Sutherland v Tutor Perini Bldg. Corp., 207 AD3d 159,

           161 [1st Dept 2022]). "Whether a regulation applies to a particular condition or circumstance is

           a question of law for the court" (Harrison v State of New York, 88 AD3d 951, 953 [2d Dept

           2011]).

                      Here, plaintiff sets forth claims predicated upon multiple violations of the Industrial

           Code. 2 Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing each claim. Except for 12 NYCRR

           23-3 .3 (c ), plaintiff does not move for relief in his favor on those claims or contest their

           2
            W~ile the B_uilding De~en_dants argue plaintiff failed to plead any violations of the Industrial Code in his complaint
           or bill of ~art1culars, plai_nt1ff served an amended bill of particulars several months in advance of the filing of
           summary Judgment that 1~cluded several _alleged violations of Industrial Code provisions (see NYSCEF Doc. No.
           201, p. 115-127). Accordmgly, these claims are properly pleaded.
               152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                                Page 19 of 33

                                                                 19 of 33
[* 19]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                  INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           dismissal. These uncontested provisions are deemed abandoned (see Kempisty v 246 Spring St.,

           LLC, 92 AD3d 474, 475 [1st Dept 2012] ["Where a defendant so moves, it is appropriate to find

           that a plaintiff who fails to respond to allegations that a certain section is inapplicable or was not

           violated be deemed to abandon reliance on that particular Industrial Code section"]). Defendants

           are entitled to summary judgment dismissing those parts of plaintiff's Labor Law§ 241 (6) claim

           predicated on the abandoned provisions.

                   Industrial Code I 2 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c)

                   As an initial matter, section 23-3.3 (c) is sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law

           § 241 (6) claim (Cardenas v One State St., LLC, 68 AD3d 436,438 [1st Dept 2009]).

                   Section 23-3.3 governs demolition by hand. Subsection 3.3 (c) governs "Inspections"

           and provides the following:

                           "During hand demolition operations, continuing inspections shall
                           be made by designated persons as the work progresses to detect
                           any hazards to any person resulting from weakened or deteriorated
                           floors or walls or from loosened material. Persons shall not be
                           suffered or permitted to work where such hazards exist until
                           protection has been provided by shoring, bracing or other effective
                           means."

                   Here, Limited argues that it fulfilled its inspection obligations and, therefore, did not

           violate this section. In support Limited refers to the testimony of its foreman, Moreno, who

           testified "yes" when he was asked whether he "perform[ed] a full inspection of the third floor on

           a daily basis when [he] was there" (Moreno tr at 50). He further testified "no" when asked ifhe

           found "anything wrong with the flooring or the process of the flooring being removed" (id. at

           51 ).

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                  Page 20 of 33

[* 20]                                                     20 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                    In opposition, plaintiff argues that Moreno's inspections did not involve hazard detection

            and, therefore, did not constitute an inspection as required by section 23-3.3 (c). In support,

           plaintiff relies on the following testimony:

                            "Q. You mentioned earlier that you did I guess daily inspections
                            when you arrived to the job site. What did those daily inspections,
                            what did they entail generally?

                            "A. Yes I am there every single day .... I just see what we are
                            going to throw away at that point, what we can do first to make the
                            job easier. Things like that"

           (id. at 78).

                    Notably, the testimony relied on by both parties fails to establish,primafacie, whether

            Limited performed "inspections ... to detect any hazard ... resulting from weakened or

            deteriorated floors" created by the demolition (12 NYCRR 23-3.3 [c]). Specifically, Moreno

            was never asked if he performed this type of hazard inspection. Rather, he was only asked a

            general question about whether he performed a "full inspection" - with no clarification on what a

            "full inspection" entailed. Further, the testimony plaintiff relies on does not support a

            determination that Moreno never inspected for hazardous conditions, as the question Moreno

            was asked focused solely on "daily inspections when [he] arrived to the job site" (id. at 78) and

            did not clarify if that was his sole inspection for the day, or merely the type of inspection he

            performed at the beginning of the workday.

                    Moreno's testimony is insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, whether section 23-3.3

            (c) was fulfilled or violated. Thus, Limited is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the

            Labor Law§ 241 (6) claim predicated on a violation of Industrial Code 23-3.3 (c), and plaintiff

           is not entitled to summary judgment in his favor on the same claim.

             152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                      Page 21 of 33

                                                            21 of 33
[* 21]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                  INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   As to the Building Defendants, plaintiff argues they did not perform any inspections.

           They rely on Lillis's testimony that Brookfield did not have "any type of employees ... that

           would perform inspections [of Limited's work] on any type ofregular basis" (id. at 57) and that

           Brookfield did not employ anyone who would "inspect or evaluate the quality of Limited's

           work" on a regular basis (id. at 58). This testimony establishes that Brookfield did not perform

           "continuing inspections" of the demolition work as required by section 23-3.3 (c).

                   In opposition, the Building Defendants fail to raise a question of fact as to this issue.

           That said, there are questions of fact regarding the proximate cause of the accident ( Yaucan, 15 5

           AD3d at 926; Sutherland, 207 AD3d at 161). Specifically, the proffered expert affidavits of the

           parties assert two dueling theories of plaintiff's accident - one of which would implicate this

           Industrial Code provision (instability created by demolition work), and one which would not (a

           preexisting defect in the raised tiling) (Ellerbe v Port Auth. ofN Y & NJ, 91 AD3d 441,442

           [1st Dept 2012] ["Where credible evidence reveals differing versions of the accident, one under

           which defendants would be liable [under the Labor Law] and another under which they would

           not, questions of fact exist making summary judgment inappropriate"]). Further, the resolution

           of differing expert opinions is a credibility determination best left to a jury to resolve (see Vosper

           v Fives 160th, LLC, 110 AD3d 544, 545 fl st Dept 2013] ["Defendant's expert's disagreement

           with plaintiffs expert's findings or methodology presents issues of fact and credibility for a jury

           to resolve"]).

                   Thus, this Court denies both the Building Defendants' motion and plaintiff's cross-

           motion for summary judgment on this claim.

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                  Page 22 of 33

                                                            22 of 33
[* 22]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                   INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           The Common-Law Negligence and Labor Law § 200 Claims
           (Motion Sequence Number 006, 007, 008)

                   Limited, Tishman, and the Building Defendants each move for summary judgment

           dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law§ 200 claims against them. 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" (Cruz v Toscano, 269 AD2d 122,

           122 [1 st Dept 2000] [citation omitted]). Labor Law§ 200 (1) states, in pertinent part, as follows:

                           "All places to which this chapter applies shall be so constructed,
                           equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide
                           reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health and safety of
                           all persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places.
                           All machinery, equipment, and devices in such places shall be so
                           placed, operated, guarded, and lighted as to provide reasonable and
                           adequate protection to all such persons."

                   There are two distinct standards applicable to section 200 cases, depending on the kind of

           situation involved: (1) when the accident is the result of the means and methods used by a

           contractor to do its work, and (2) when the accident is the result of a dangerous condition that is

           inherent in the premises (see Cappabianca v Skanska USA Bldg Inc., 99 AD3d 139, 143-144

           [1st Dept 2012] ["Claims for personal injury under [section 200] and the common law fall into

           two broad categories: those arising from an alleged defect or dangerous condition existing on the

           premises and those arising from the manner in which the work was performed"]).

                   Here, plaintiff was injured when a tile unexpectedly shifted and/or moved, causing his

           foot to fall through the opening created by the shifted floor tile. As noted above, there are

           questions of fact that remain regarding what caused the accident. With respect to section 200

           liability, plaintiff's accident may have arisen from either a dangerous condition inherent in the

           Premises (a preexisting defect in the raised tiling) or from the means and methods of the work

           (the failure to properly brace, support and inspect the remaining tiles while the demolition work

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                   Page 23 of 33

[* 23]                                                     23 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                               INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           was ongoing). Reflecting these differing positions, plaintiff and defendants provide dueling

           expert affidavits regarding the cause of the accident (Fuchs Aff; NYSCEF Doc. No. 221;

           Danatzko aff; NYSCEF Doc. No. 204 ). As discussed above, the resolution of differing expert

           opinions is a matter for a jury (see Vosper, 110 AD3d at 545).

                   That said, if a defendant cannot be found liable under both the hazardous condition and

           means and methods analyses, it would be entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-

           law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against it. Therefore, this Court must address both

           analyses.

                   Means and Methods

                   Where a plaintiffs claims implicate the means and methods of the work, an owner or a

           contractor will not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 unless "it actually exercised

           supervisory control over the injury-producing work" (Jackson v Hunter Roberts Constr., L.L. C.,

           205 AD3d 542, 543 [1st Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; Naughton v

           City ofNew York, 94 AD3d 1, 11 [1st Dept 2012] ["liability can only be imposed against a party

           who exercises actual supervision of the injury-producing work"]). "General supervisory

           authority is insufficient to constitute supervisory control" (Hughes v Tishman Constr. Corp., 40

           AD3d 305,306 [1st Dept 2007]).

                   Here, the record is devoid of any evidence that Tishman or the Building Defendants

           actually directed and supervised Limited's work. Plaintiff provides no evidence that Tishman

           interacted with, supervised or controlled Limited at all. Plaintiffs argument that Tishman, as the

           entity that hired Cosentini (plaintiffs employer), had the authority to supervise and control

           plaintiff is unavailing. Plaintiffs work was not the injury producing work (see Jackson, 205

           AD3d at 543).

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                    Page 24 of 33

                                                            24 of 33
[* 24]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                 INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   As to the Building Defendants, the record establishes that they directed Limited's work

           insofar as they provided Limited its scope of work and coordinated when it was to perform its

           work (informing Limited as to when it could demolish certain areas). However, they did not

           provide actual supervision or control over Limited's demolition work (and any shoring work that

           may have been necessary). Accordingly, the Building Defendants' general direction over the

           scope and coordination of Limited's work only establish a general supervisory control over

           Limited's work. General supervisory authority is insufficient to impute liability under section

           200 (see Bisram v Long Is. Jewish Hosp., 116 AD3d 475,476 [1st Dept 2014]; Hughes, 40

           AD3d at 306).

                   As to Limited, it only argues it did not have the authority to control plaintiffs work, but,

           as noted above, plaintiffs work was not the injury producing work. To the extent the accident

           may have been caused due to instability created from the demolition of the surrounding raised

           tiles, the record establishes that Limited was the entity that performed that work. Further,

           testimony shows that Limited was also responsible for inspecting its own work. Accordingly,

           should it be determined that the accident was caused due to the demolition of the surrounding

           floor tiles, it cannot be said that Limited did not have actual supervision or control over the

           subject injury producing work. Therefore, Limited has not established its entitlement to

           dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law§ 200 claims under a means and

           methods analysis.

                   Therefore, Tishman and the Building Defendants would be entitled to summary judgment

           dismissing these claims under a means and methods analysis, while Limited would not be

           entitled to dismissal of the same.

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                 Page 25 of 33

[* 25]                                                      25 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                   INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                     Hazardous Condition

                     Where "a plaintiffs injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being

           performed, but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, a general contractor may be

           liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site

           and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition" (Keating v Nanuet Bd. of Educ., 40

           AD3d 706, 708 [2d Dept 2007]; Mendoza v Highpoint Assoc., IX, LLC, 83 AD3d 1, 9 [1st Dept

           2011]).

                     Here, as discussed above, Tishman did not have control over the work done on the third

           floor of the Premises. Specifically, it was not contractually delegated control over the work site

           (or the work performed) where the accident occurred, and the record establishes that it did not

           have any knowledge of a hazard, or a duty to inspect any of Limited's work. Therefore, it cannot

           be liable for plaintiff's accident under the hazardous condition analysis (Keating, 40 AD3d at

           708). Accordingly, Tishman would be entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-

           law negligence and Labor Law§ 200 claims under this theory.

                     The Building Defendants, as the owner/manager of the Premises, had overall control over

           the Premises, including the work site. Limited, as the entity hired to perform the work at the

           work site, also had control over that work site. Accordingly, it must be determined whether the

           Building Defendants and Limited had actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition -

           namely loose tiles - in the accident area.

                     While there is no evidence of actual knowledge of any hazardous/defective tiles in the

           subject area, there remain questions of fact as to whether the Building Defendants or Limited had

           constructive notice of a loose tile hazard at the accident location.

                            "A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible
                            and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                   Page 26 of 33

                                                           26 of 33
[* 26]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                  INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                           the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected .
                           . . . When a defect is latent and would not be discoverable upon a
                           reasonable inspection, constructive notice may not be imputed"

           (Carrillo v Circle Manor Apts., 131 AD3d 662,664 [2d Dept 2015] [internal citations and

           quotation marks omitted]).

                  To establish a lack of constructive notice of a hazardous condition, a party must establish,

           inter alia, that it inspected the accident location and when it last did so. Failing to do so raises

           triable issues of fact (see Pereira v New Sch., 148 AD3d 410, 412-13 [1st Dept 2017] [the

           defendants failed to establish lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition "since they

           submitted no evidence of ... when the site had last been inspected before the accident"], citing

           Ladignon v Lower Manhattan Dev. Corp., 128 AD3d 534, 535 [1st Dept 2015] ["There are

           triable issues as to constructive notice of the defective condition of the staircase since the record

           is unclear as to when the staircase was last inspected prior to plaintiffs fall"]).

                   Here, neither the Building Defendants or Limited establish when they last inspected the

           area where the accident occurred, nor do they present sufficient evidence that the defect was

           latent, such that the defect would not have been discovered by an inspection. The dueling expert

           testimony on the nature of the defect - how it came to be, whether it would have been identified

           by an inspection, and how it caused the accident - underscore the questions of fact that remain

           under the hazardous condition analysis. Accordingly, the Building Defendants and Limited have

           not established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the common-law

           negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against them under the hazardous condition analysis.

                   In light of the foregoing, under either theory of the accident, Tishrnan has established it is

           entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200

           claims as against it. The Building Defendants and Limited, however, may still be liable under at

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET Al Motion No. 006 007 008                       Page 27 of 33

[* 27]                                                     27 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                   INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           least one theory of the accident. Accordingly, they are not entitled to summary judgment

           dismissing the same claims as against them.

           Building Defendants' Cross-claims for Contractual Indemnification
           (Motion Sequence Numbers 006 and 008)

                     Building Defendants move for summary judgment in their favor on their crossclaim for

           contractual indemnification against Limited. Limited moves for summary judgment dismissing

           the same crossclaim.

                    Additional Facts Relevant to This Issue

                     450 Partners and Limited entered into the Purchase Order, dated November 22, 2013, for

           the work related to the Limited Project (Building Defendants' notice of motion, exhibit M;

           NYSCEF Doc. No. 186). The Purchase Order identifies Limited as the "Seller" and 450 West

           33rd Street as the "Buyer." It contains an "Seller's Indemnity" provision that provides the

           following, as relevant:

                            "To the extent permitted by Laws, [Limited] will indemnify and
                            hold Buyer and Buyer's affiliates, agents ... (an "Indemnitee"
                            harmless from, and at Buyer's option, defend any claim ...
                            incurred by any Indemnitee arising out of or related to: (i)
                            [Limited's] performance of this order (except to the extent the
                            same is caused by the gross negligence or willful misconduct of
                            Buyer or its employees, agents or contractors), (ii) the negligence
                            or willful misconduct of fLimited] or its agents ... "

           (id.' Jr 8).

                     "A party is entitled to full contractual indemnification provided that the 'intention to

           indemnify can be clearly implied from the language and purposes of the entire agreement and the

           surrounding facts and circumstances"' (Karwowski v 1407 Broadway Real Estate, LLC, 160

           AD3d 82, 87-88 (1st Dept 2018], quoting Drzewinski v Atlantic Scaffold & Ladder Co., 70 NY2d

           774, 777 [1987]). "In contractual indemnification, the one seeking indemnity need only establish

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                        Page 28 of 33

                                                           28 of 33
[* 28]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           that it was free from any negligence and was held liable solely by virtue of the statutory liability"

           (Correia v Professional Data Mgt., 259 AD2d 60, 65 [1st Dept 1999]; see also Lexington Ins. Co.

           v Kiska Dev. Group LLC, 182 AD3d 462,464 [1st Dept 2020][denying summary judgment

           where indemnitee "has not established that it was free from negligence"]). Further, unless the

           indemnification clause explicitly requires a finding of negligence on behalf of the indemnitor,

           "[w]hether or not the proposed indemnitor was negligent is a non-issue and irrelevant"

           (Correia, 259 AD2d at 65).

                   As an initial matter, as noted above, there remain questions of fact as to whether the

           accident "arose out of or related to" Limited's work (or whether the cause of the accident was a

           latent defect in the subject tile). Further, as discussed above, even if the accident arose from

           Limited's work, there remain questions of fact regarding whether Building Defendants were

           negligent in failing to inspect the subject accident area. Therefore, Building Defendants are not

           entitled to summary judgment in their favor on this claim.

                   Turning to Limited's motion, Limited first argues that the indemnification provision

           violates General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-322.1 (see Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna

           Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786, 795 [1997] [a clause in a construction contract which purports to

           indemnify a party for its own negligence is void under GOL § 5-322.1 ]). However, the

           indemnification provision contains language that limited indemnification "[t]o the extent

           permitted by Laws" (Purchase Order; NYSCEF Doc. No. 186). Therefore, the indemnification

           provision does not violate GOL § 5-322.1 (see e.g. Brooks v Judlau Contr., Inc., 11 NY3d 204,

           210 [2008]).

                   Next, Limited argues the accident did not arise from Limited's work and , therefore , the

           indemnification provision cannot be invoked. This argument is unpersuasive as questions of fact

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                 Page 29 of 33

                                                                                                                      /
[* 29]                                                     29 of 33
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                               INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           remain regarding whether the subject tile was undermined, loosened or otherwise damaged by

           Limited's work. Accordingly, Limited is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing Building

           Defendants' contractual indemnification claims against it.

           Building Defendants' Cross-claims for Common-Law Indemnification and Contribution
           (Motion Sequence Numbers 006 and 008)

                   Building Defendants move for summary judgment in their favor on their cross-claim for

           common-law indemnification and contribution against Limited. Limited moves for summary

           judgment dismissing the same claims.

                   "To establish a claim for common-law indemnification, 'the one seeking indemnity must

           prove not only that it was not guilty of any negligence beyond the statutory liability but must

           also prove that the proposed indemnitor was guilty of some negligence that contributed to the

           causation of the accident"' (Perri v Gilbert Johnson Enters., Ltd., 14 AD3d 681, 684-685 [2d

           Dept 2005], quoting Correia, 259 AD2d at 65). "Contribution is available where two or more

           tortfeasors combine to cause an injury and is determined in accordance with the relative

           culpability of each such person" (Godoy v Abamaster of Miami, 302 AD2d 57, 61 [2d Dept

           2003] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

                   Here, as discussed above, questions of fact remain as to whether Limited and/or Building

           Defendants may have been negligent with respect to plaintiff's accident. Accordingly, neither

           Building Defendants nor Limited are entitled to summary judgment on the common-law

           indemnification and contribution claims against Limited.

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                    Page 30 of 33

                                                           30 of 33
[* 30]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           Building Defendants' Claim for Breach of Contract for the Failure to Procure Insurance as

           against Limited (Motion Sequence Numbers 006 and 008)

                   Building Defendants move for summary judgment in their favor on their claims for

           breach of contract for the failure to procure insurance as against Limited. Limited moves for

           summary judgment dismissing the same claim.

                   Notably, Building Defendants do not address this claim in their brief. Accordingly, they

           have failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment in their favor. Limited failed to

           annex a copy of its insurance policy to its motion papers and, therefore, has not established that it

           procured the required insurance (see Castillo v Port Auth. of N. Y & NJ., 159 AD3d 792, 797 [2d

           Dept 2018] [movants failed to establish entitlement to judgment on the failure to procure claim

           "as neither of them submitted any evidence demonstrating that they procured an insurance policy

           as required by their respective contracts").

                   The parties' remaining arguments have been considered and were determined to be

           unavailing. Neither party is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

                                              CONCLUSION AND ORDER

                   For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

                   ORDERED that motion of defendant Limited Interiors Group (Limited) (motion

           sequence number 006), pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the

           complaint, as well as all cross-claims against it is granted to the extent that the Labor Law

           §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims are dismissed, except for that portion of the section 241 (6) claim

           predicated upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c), and the remainder of the motion is denied;

           and it is further

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                     Page 31 of 33

                                                           31 of 33
[* 31]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   ORDERED that the motion of defendant Tishman Construction Corp. (Tishman)

           (motion sequence number 007), pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the

           complaint as against it is granted, and the complaint against it is dismissed with costs and

           disbursements as taxed by the Clerk of the Court upon the submission of an appropriate bill of

           costs; and the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the motion of defendants 450 Partners LLC , Brookfield Properties

           Developer LLC, Brookfield Financial Properties LP, Brookfield Properties W 33rd GP LLC,

           Brookfield Properties W 33rd Holdings LLC and Brookfield Properties W 33rd CO., L.P.

           (collectively the Building Defendants) (motion sequence number 008), pursuant to CPLR 3212,

           for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, and for summary judgment in

           their favor on their on their cross-claims against Limited is granted to the extent that the Labor

           Law §§ 240 and 241 ( 6) claims are dismissed, except for that portion of the section 241 ( 6) claim

           predicated upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c), and the remainder of the motion is denied;

           and it is further

                   ORDERED that plaintiff Robert Ledonne's cross-motion (in relation to motion sequence

           number 006), pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment in his favor on his Labor Law

           § § 240 ( 1) and 241 ( 6) claims against Limited is denied; and it is further

                   ORDERED that plaintiff Robert Ledonne's cross-motion (in relation to motion sequence

           number 007), pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment in his favor on his Labor Law

           §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against Tishman is denied; and it is further

                   ORDERED that plaintiff Robert Ledonne's cross-motion (in relation to motion sequence

           number 008), pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment in his favor on his Labor Law

           §§ 240 ( 1) and 241 (6) claims against Building Defendants is denied; and it is further

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008                      Page 32 of 33

                                                           32 of 33
[* 32]
 [FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 04:59 P~                                                      INDEX NO. 152279/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 276                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   ORDERED that the remainder of this action will continue.

                   This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                   4/18/2024
                     DATE

                                     ~
            CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                        NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          □ DENIED            GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                         SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN           FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

            152279/2017 LEDONNE V 450 PARTNERS ET AL Motion No. 006 007 008
                                                                                                       Page 33 of 33

                                                           33 of 33
[* 33]