Court Opinion

ID: 9927378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 21:07:47.339194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:14.393867
License: Public Domain

Rivera v Rotavele El. Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30266(U)
                    January 22, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 161059/2013
               Judge: James d'Auguste
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. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:       Hon. James E. d'Auguste                            PARTSS
                                                                   Justice

                                                                       X     INDEX NO.         161059/2013
            ALAN RIVERA,
                                                                                                08/24/2020,
                                                                             MOTION DATE        04/23/2021
                                             Plaintiff,
                                                                             MOTION SEQ. NO.      007 008
                                      -v-
            ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC., BOARD OF MANAGERS
            200 ELEVENTH AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS, DOUGLAS
                                                                               DECISION + ORDER ON
            ELLIMAN PROPERTY MANAGERS,
                                                                                      MOTION
                                             Defendants.

           ------------------X
            BOARD OF MANAGERS 200 ELEVENTH AVENUE                                       Third-Party
            CONDOMINIUMS, DOUGLAS ELLIMAN PROPERTY                                Index No. 595413/2016
            MANAGERS

                                             Plaintiffs,

                                       -against-

            ZMK GROUP, INC., ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.,

                                             Defendants.
            ------------------X
            BOARD OF MANAGERS 200 ELEVENTH AVENUE                                   Second Third-Party
            CONDOMINIUMS, DOUGLAS ELLIMAN PROPERTY                                Index No. 595340/2017
            MANAGERS,

                                             Plaintiffs,

                                       -against-

            ANDREW CONRAD, HAY LYNN COHEN,

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

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 168, 169, 170, 171,
           172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,
           193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,
           215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,228,229,230,234,235,236,237,238,239,
           240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,
           261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278,281,282,283,

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                Page 1 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 1]                                                      1 of 39
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

            284,285,286,287,288,289,290,291,292,295,296,297,298,299,300,301,302,303,304,305,306,
            307,308,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,338,339,340,341
            were read on this motion to/for                            SUMMARY JUDGMENT

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 317, 318, 319, 320,
            321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,343,344,345,346,
            347,349,350
            were read on this motion to/for                            SUMMARY JUDGMENT

                   In this action, plaintiff Alan Rivera (plaintiff) alleges that on November 26, 2012, he was

           injured on the ground floor of 200 Eleventh Avenue in New York, New York, when he was

           struck by a freight elevator's stainless-steel door/gate.

                   Motion sequence numbers 007 and 008 have been consolidated for disposition.

                   In motion sequence number 007, plaintiff moves, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to strike the

           answer of second third-party defendants Andrew Conrad (Conrad) and Hay Lynn Cohen (Cohen)

           for their alleged willful failure to comply with Court discovery orders. Plaintiff also moves,

           pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment against the defendant/third-

           party defendant Rotavele Elevator, Inc. (Rotavele) and defendants/third party plaintiffs/second

           third-party plaintiffs Board of Managers 200 Eleventh Avenue Condominiums (Board of

           Managers) and Douglas Elliman Property Managers (Douglas Elliman) on the issue ofliability.

                   Third-party defendant ZMK Group, Inc. (ZMK) cross-moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212

           and/or 3211 (a) (7), for an order granting it summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs

           complaint as well as all third-party claims.

                   Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman cross-move, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an

           order granting summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs complaint. Board of Managers and

           Douglas Elliman also move against ZMK for contractual indemnification, common law

           indemnification, and breach of contract for failing to procure insurance.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 2 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 2]                                                     2 of 39
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                  Rotavele cross-moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order granting summary judgment

           dismissing plaintiffs complaint together with all third-party claims.

                  In motion sequence number 008, Conrad and Cohen move, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for

           an order granting them summary judgment in the second third-party action and dismissing all

           claims as against them for contractual indemnification, common law indemnification,

           contribution, and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance.

                                          FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

           Plaintiff's Deposition

                  Plaintiff testified that on November 26, 2012, he was allegedly involved in an accident

           while he was working for ZMK as a site supervisor at 200 Eleventh A venue. His duties at ZMK

           included running projects, dealing with contractors, and dictating what contractors do. Plaintiff

           reported to "Zach" who was the owner of ZMK. His main boss was Tom Levy (Levy), the vice-

           president. At the premises, his work included running a job for brand new kitchens, closets,

           doors, alarm systems and flooring. He assisted with framing and sheet rocking and recalls that

           the work was on the eighth and ninth floor of the building in an apartment for a client named

           "Andrew."

                  The building had one passenger elevator and one freight elevator. The freight elevator

           was used to move vehicles and remove garbage for contractors and to bring up materials for

           construction projects. He recalls a superintendent named Andrew Slapar (Slapar) instructing him

           that the passenger elevators were for residential clients only and that ZMK was only allowed to

           use the freight elevator whenever he needed to utilize it. The superintendent told plaintiff to

           push a button on the freight elevator, as well as the floor to which he was traveling, and was the

           only person from whom plaintiff received instructions regarding the freight elevator.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 3 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 3]                                                     3 of 39
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                  ZMK was hired to conduct work for an interior renovation of the apartment. Besides

           speaking with the superintendent, plaintiff also had dealings with the interior decorators at the

           building. The building did not provide a designated operator for the elevator. The

           superintendent allowed plaintiff to run the elevator with other contractors. The building did not

           provide him with any written procedures or protocols about using the freight elevator.

                   Once plaintiff was aware someone was on-site he would push a button located outside of

           the elevator which would bring the elevator up to the eighth floor. He recalls the elevator had

           stainless steel doors from the top and bottom which met in the middle. Once the doors would

           close, a mesh metal gate would come down. He does not recall hearing a bell or alarm when the

           doors opened.

                  Plaintiffs accident allegedly involved getting struck by the mesh metal gate of the

           elevator door. He recalls walking into the exit part of the elevator with a co-worker named

           Danny who was to his right. He blacked out after the accident. He recalls that Danny was also

           allegedly struck by the elevator doors and had a golf ball knot on his forehead. Danny allegedly

           told him that the elevator fell on his head. Plaintiff recalls riding the elevator several times

           before the accident. He recalls Levy being present and telling him that the elevator struck him

           on the midsection top part of his head. Plaintiff testified that there were no beeping sounds

           before the elevator closed.

                  Prior to his accident, plaintiff noticed that the elevator doors and metal gate were closing

           too fast. He allegedly brought this to the attention of the superintendent. Plaintiff also testified

           that he reported that the doors were not closing, especially on the entry side. He recalls the

           subject elevator being shut down four times prior to his accident because there were issues with

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                   Page4 of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 4]                                                     4 of 39
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           it. Plaintiff was allegedly told by the superintendent that someone was hurt before and that they

           would have to fix the lack of warning sound.

           Andrei Slapar Deposition

                  Slapar testified that he is employed by 200 Eleventh Avenue Condominium as a resident

           manager and worked on-site. In November of 2012, Slapar was aware of construction work

           occuring on the eighth floor of the premises. Slapar would allow access to the unit and helped

           with questions throughout the process. His supervisor was David Lipsik who was a property

           manager.
                                                                                                 .
                  Slapar recalls plaintiff, who was from ZMK, and observing-ZMK utilizing the freight

           elevator to bring construction debris or garbage down from apartment 8N on a regular basis.

           Slapar instructed plaintiff on how to use the freight elevators. He recalls allegedly telling

           plaintiff to block the sensor so that the door stayed open. No instructions were provided about

           exiting the freight elevator on the ground floor.

                  Slapar believes that he was at the building on November 26, 2012, the date of plaintiffs

           accident. He recalls plaintiff allegedly telling him that an elevator door hit him. After he was

           alerted of plaintiffs accident, Slapar checked a video to see what occurred, drafted an incident

           report, and submitted it to Douglas Elliman.

                  Prior to the accident, Slapar asserts he did not learn of any complaints related to the

           exiting doors closing on anyone. If there was a problem which was not part of the elevator's

           usual maintenance agreement, Slapar or the concierge on duty would call the elevator servicing

           company. Slapar did not recall the specifics, but reviewed an elevator call log which included an

           entry from November 13, 2012, which states that the freight elevator door would not completely

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 5 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

                                                          5 of 39
[* 5]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           close. The entrance door had a curtain sensor on each side of the door where the exit door has a

           sensor on the inside of the door.

                   Slapar testified that no one told him that there was an attendant required for the freight

           elevator. Douglas Elliman took care of the administrative tasks. Prior to November 26, 2012, he

           allegedly did not know of any issues with the curtain sensors at the exit door of the freight

           elevator. He was not aware that freight elevators in the City of New York needed a designated

           operator and recalls that while construction was on going for a period of four or five months,

           there was someone sitting in the elevator operating it.

                   Slapar maintains that when a person or an object was inside the elevator and in close

           proximity to the doors, the doors would stay open. The sensor was· set up so that if a person was

           approaching and engaged a sensor, it would prevent the door and gate from closing. He believes

           that the elevator should stay open for twenty seconds with nothing blocking the sensor, and a

           loud beep would sound when the door would start to close. He had not made a complaint to

           Rotavele regarding the beeping sound or sensors or call anyone from Rotavele to advise them of

           the plaintiff's incident.

                   Following the incident, Slapar allegedly checked the elevator and saw the alarm and

           sensors were working properly. Rotavele was not called to make any repairs as a result of the

           incident. The elevator did not have a 24-hour attendant. Slapar allegedly provided instructions

           to plaintiff on how to operate the elevator.

           Andrew Conrad's Deposition

                   Andrew Conrad testified that he owned a residence at 200 Eleventh A venue, apartment 8-

           N, from June of2012 through 2013. He recalls hiring ZMK as a contractor, but was not sure if

           there was a contract. There was an estimate or work order dated September 18 2012, with

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 6 of39
            Motion No. 007 008

                                                          6 of 39
[* 6]
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           someone in his business office's signature, as it was not his actual signature. The business

           managers in his office had the authority to sign on his behalf.

                  Conrad maintains that ZMK's work at the site included kitchen and bathroom work. He

           believes that the work was completed. He asserts that neither he, his wife Lynn Conrad, nor

           anyone under his direction or authority supervised and controlled the work performed by ZMK.

                  Conrad asserts he does not have any knowledge of the accident other than what his

           attorney told him. The elevator where the accident took place was a large freight-type elevator

           used to raise and lower cars in and out of private garages located in the actual apartments. He

           did not see anyone operating the elevator other than people who may have been owners of the

           building. There was no attendant in the freight elevator. He maintains that there was a

           proximity sensor installed in his car which alerted the elevator that his car was present. Conrad

           believes that outside of the elevator there was a button in the elevator which could be called. He

           recalls a handyman or building manager named Andrew.

           John Mallia's Deposition

                  John Mallia (Mallia) testified that he is a supervisor for Rotavele. Mallia was not present

           at the site at 200 Eleventh Avenue on November 26, 2012. IfRotavele received a call, a route

           mechanic would respond. General maintenance visits would take place on the property on a

           monthly basis. The mechanic would check in with the building and would direct their

           communication with the office. The building engineer would tell the mechanic what the problem

           was.

                  Mallia maintains that Rotavele allegedly installed the freight elevator. An "electric eye"

           sensor would prevent the doors from closing. A curtain device was a black strip inside of the

           elevator door and if anything protruded between the doors, it would reopen. There were no

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                               Page 7 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 7]                                                     7 of 39
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           settings which controlled the safety curtain. Prior to November 26, 2012, there were allegedly

           no problems with sounds, which were generated prior to the doors closing.

                  Mallia first learned of plaintiff's accident a couple of weeks after it occurred. There

           would be no one present from Rotavele when the inspection of the elevator was conducted by

           either the City of New York or a third party. Mallia did not know if his company had any

           dealings with ZMK. Calls regarding the elevator would come from someone in the building.

           Mallia testified that he observed a video of the accident in which a man was walking towards the

           inside of the elevator and the exit side gate came down and struck him in the head. He maintains

           that the beam was allegedly not triggered prior to the gate striking the man on the head because

           he was entering through the exit side of the elevator.

                  Rotavele had repaired the entry to the doors on November 13, 2012, because they would

           not close. Mallia does not believe the problem on November 13, 2012, had anything to do with

           the plaintiff's accident. He asserts that while utilizing the entrance door side of the elevator, the

           electric eye was tripped by the gate. If entering from the street side of the elevator, a person

           would reach the gate doors of the elevator before getting to the electric eye. Rotavele allegedly

           did not have contact with anyone conducting renovations on the building.

            Zachary Kaplan's Deposition

                  Kaplan testified that he is a general contractor. ZMK issued a purchase order for work to

           be conducted at the Conrad residence at 200 Eleventh Avenue, apartment 8N. Neither Conrad

           nor Cohen told the workers how to conduct their jobs. Kaplan was aware that his workers were

           told to use the freight elevator in the back of the building. He believes that the superintendent of

           the building controlled the elevator and provided the workers with access.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                   Page& of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 8]                                                     8 of 39
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                  Kaplan maintains that ZMK's work did not involve the elevator itself or its doors. The

           work was limited to the interior of the apartment. He reviewed an indemnification agreement

           which he did not sign. He contends that the signature on the indemnification agreement was a

           fraudulent signature and that he did not provide permission to any workers, foreman or

           supervisors to sign on his behalf. Kaplan has an unsigned copy of this document in his file. He

           believes that someone from the building signed the document. Kaplan believes that the

           handwriting allegedly matches the accident report.

                  Kaplan did not receive a copy of the incident or accident report. He never received any

           complaints from plaintiff. Kaplan recalls plaintiff telling him about his accident and that the

           elevator struck him in the back a few days after the accident while the elevator was on the

           ground level.

           Affidavit of Patrick A. Carraiat

                  Patrick A. Carrajat (Carrajat) is an elevator consultant. Carrajat states that on November

           26, 2012, at approximately 11 :30 a.m., the plaintiff, in the course of his employment, was injured

           while entering an elevator at 200 Eleventh A venue. The subject elevator is a combination freight

           elevator and garage elevator. It is used to transport all manner of materials and serves as a

           device to take the cars of individual owners of units to their apartments. The elevator is fully

           automatic and has vertically bi-parting doors composed of two panels. The upper and lower

           panels close together after the mesh type gate closes.

                  Carrajat states that as plaintiff and a co-worker were entering the elevator, the gate came

           down without a warning signal and struck both men. He states that he has reviewed the public

           records in reference to the subject elevator. Elevators are subject to two types of inspections, a

           routine and annual "Category One" inspection and test. Carrajat states that the subject elevator

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 9of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 9]                                                     9 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           was issued a violation on June 7, 2012, as a result of a routine inspection by an Elevator Division

           inspector. It was also found "Unacceptable" as a result of a Category One inspection on October

           17, 2012.

                    Carrajat maintains that a two-year old elevator should not fail repeated inspections. He

           states that, in addition, the records reveal that the accident was never reported to the Elevator

           Division, as required by the Building Laws of the City ofNew York. When an accident is

           reported, the Elevator Division dispatches an inspector to perform a safety inspection before the

           elevator can be returned to service. He asserts that the failure to report the accident has deprived

           plaintiff of any benefit that may have accrued from a contemporaneous inspection by a neutral

           party.

                    Carrajat alleges that to a reasonable degree of mechanical certainty that plaintiff was

           using the elevator in a proper manner and did not cause or contribute to the accident or his

           injuries, and that the defendants were in shared exclusive control of the elevator at the time of the

           accident. Carrajat states that Rotavele, by virtue of their exclusive service contract, and the

           remaining property defendants, by their management of the property, shared exclusivity. He

           concludes that a power-driven gate does not strike a person in the normal operation of the device

           absent negligence in maintenance.

           Affidavit of Patrick McPartland

                    Patrick McPartland (McPartland) submits an affidavit dated February 1, 2021.

           McPartland states that he is a consulting engineer in the field of vertical transportation devices.

           He maintains the subject elevator had a designated entrance side at the street level where

           resident's cars would drive into the elevator cab to be able to go up to their specific apartment

           garage space. There was a separate exit side at the other side of the cab, directly opposite to the

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 10 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 10]                                                   10 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           entrance, where cars would drive out from the elevator after coming down from their garage

           space.

                    McPartland alleges that plaintiff improperly entered the elevator through a set of doors

           that were designed and intended for use only as an exit. Plaintiff had not engaged the beams of

           the gate/door reopening device before the elevator gate made contact. The gate worked as it was

           designed and intended and reopened as plaintiff made contact with the gate itself and the light

           beams were interrupted. The elevator installation was code compliant and approved by the City

           of New York. He concludes that there was no act or omission by Rotavele which caused or

           contributed to the incident.

           Affidavit of Dennis J. Ryan

                    Denis J. Ryan (Ryan) submits an affidavit dated November 18, 2020. Ryan states that he

           is a board-certified forensic document examiner and the founder and principal of Applied

           Forensics, LLC. Ryan asserts that based upon his review of the exemplar signatures of Kaplan

           and his comparison of the signatures to a purported indemnification agreement disclosed by

           Board of Managers, it is highly probable, and virtually certain, that the signature set forth on the

           purported indemnification agreement is not the signature of Kaplan.

           Affidavit of Jeffrey H. Luber

                    Jeffrey H. Luber (Luber) submits an affidavit dated March 9, 2021. Luber is a Diplomate

           of the American Board of Forensic Examiners and is an expert in forensic document

           examination. Luber contends that the findings of Ryan fail to explain the basis for his

           conclusions. Luber maintains that he has examined the known signatures of Kaplan and the

           questioned signature on the indemnification agreement and concludes that there is not enough

           available evidence basis for Ryan to reach his conclusions that the signature is not genuine.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 11 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 11]                                                   11 of 39
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                                                  DISCUSSION

           Motion Sequence 007

                  In motion sequence number 007, plaintiff first moves, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to strike

           the answer of second third-party defendants Conrad and Cohen for allegedly willfully failing to

           comply with Court discovery orders. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to this relief because

           they failed to produce witnesses for depositions pursuant to CPLR 3126.

                  In a stipulation dated November 20, 2020, and entered into between counsel for plaintiff

           and Conrad and Cohen, it was agreed "that the portion of plaintiff's Motion for Summary

           Judgment that seeks to strike the answer of the second third-party defendants, currently

           returnable November 30, 2020, is hereby withdrawn on consent" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 227).

           Therefore, the part of the motion, pursuant to CPLR 3126 and to strike the answer of second

           third-party defendants, Conrad and Cohen is denied as moot.

           Summary Judgment Standard

                  Plaintiff also moves for summary judgment as to his claims of a violation of Labor Law

           §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200. A party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate its

           defense or cause of action sufficiently to eliminate any material issues of fact. Ryan v Trustees

           of Columbia Univ. in the City ofN Y, Inc., 96 AD3d 551,553 (1st Dept 2012). Once this

           showing has been made, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce evidentiary proof in

           admissible form which is sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact. Ostrov v

           Rozbruch, 91 AD3d 147, 152 (1st Dept 2012).

           Labor Law Section 240 (1)

                  Plaintiff contends that summary judgment must be granted as to his claim of a violation

           of Labor Law § 240 ( 1).

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                Page 12 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 12]                                                   12 of 39
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                  Labor Law § 240 ( 1) provides in part:

                  "[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-
                  family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, 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."

                  The Appellate Division, First Department, has held that "[t]he failure to provide safety

           devices constitutes a per se violation of the statute and subjects owners and contractors to

           absolute liability, as a matter of law, for any injuries that result from such failure since workers

           are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accident." Cherry v Time Warner, Inc., 66

           AD3d 233,235 (1st Dept 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

                  The Court of Appeals has held that "[n ]ot every worker who falls at a construction site,

           and not every object that falls on a worker, gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor

           Law § 240 (1 ). Rather, 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); citing Ross

           v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494,501 (1993).

                  Plaintiff argues that his accident is the type of accident which Labor Law § 240 ( 1) was

           enacted to prevent. Plaintiff contends that he was performing construction-related work while

           using a freight elevator. He maintains that the depositions demonstrate that he was injured as a

           result of the freight elevator's gate striking his head from above. Plaintiff maintains that the

           inadequately secured freight elevator gate fell on him because of the failure to use adequate

           safety devices, it was not functioning correctly, and required repair. Plaintiff argues that he was

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 13 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 13]                                                   13 of 39
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           not provided with any protective safety equipment to protect him from this overhead hazard,

           which fell and struck plaintiff.

                  In opposition to plaintiffs motion and in support of their cross-motion for summary

           judgment, Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman contend that plaintiff has failed to establish

           that the work involved a significant inherent risk attributable to an elevation differential, that the

           injury was the foreseeable consequence of a failure to provide proper protective devices of the

           type enumerated in the statute, or that the freight elevator door, which was never in the process

           of falling, constituted a load being hoisted or that required securing within the contemplation of

           the statute. They maintain that it is undisputed that plaintiff was not working at an elevated

           height or near an elevation-related risk but was moving garbage, an activity which was

           completely unrelated to elevation or the freight elevator.

                  "[F]or section 240 (1) to apply, a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell

           causing injury to a worker. A plaintiff must show that the object fell, while being hoisted or

           secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the

           statute." Narducci, 96 NY2d at 268.

                  Here, plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the elevator door fell

           because of the absence or an inadequacy of a safety device. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how

           safety devices discussed in Labor Law § 240 ( 1), specifically scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders,

           slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, or ropes, would have been applicable to prevent

           the accident or provide proper protection to plaintiff as the testimony suggests that plaintiff was

           struck by a descending elevator door which then ascended after striking him.

                  Furthermore, plaintiff has also failed to demonstrate that the door was a load which

           required securing as per the statute or that plaintiffs work involved a significant inherent risk

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                   Page 14 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 14]                                                   14 of 39
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           attributable to an elevation differential. See Lanzilotta v Lizby Assocs., 216 AD2d 229, 230 (1st

           Dept 1995) (holding that the Court properly found that Labor Law§ 240 (1) is inapplicable to

           the accident when the elevator doors shut on plaintiff's head).

                  Therefore, as Labor Law§ 240 (1) is inapplicable to plaintiff's accident as plaintiff fails

           to demonstrate that the door fell, while being hoisted or secured, or that the accident occurred

           because of the absence of, or due to an inadequacy of a safety device, the part of plaintiff's

           motion seeking summary judgment as to Labor Law§ 240 (1) must be denied. Furthermore, the

           part of Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's cross-motion seeking to dismiss the

           allegations of a violation of Labor Law § 240 ( l) must be granted.

                  Also in opposition, ZMK argues that plaintiff's allegation of a Labor Law § 240 ( 1)

           violation must be dismissed as against it. ZMK contends that plaintiff neither fell nor was he

           struck by a falling object, that plaintiff was struck on the head as he walked the wrong way into

           the exit of an elevator and the mechanical elevator doors began to close, and that there is no

           testimony to suggest that the elevator door "fell" or that its operation, and thus its descent, were

           caused by the force of gravity. However, the Court notes that plaintiff has not named ZMK as a

           direct defendant, nor has he filed any causes of action against this third-party defendant.

           Therefore, no Labor Law violations have been asserted against ZMK and the Court will not

           address such claims as to ZMK. See Badzio v East 68th St. Tenants Corp., 2020 NY Slip op

           32885 (U), * 58-59 (Sup Ct, NY County, 2020).

                  In opposition to plaintiff's motion, and in support of its own cross-motion, Rotavele

           contends that plaintiffs claims as against it pursuant to the Labor Law must fail because

           Rotavele was not an owner or a general contractor within the meaning of the Labor Law. It

           argues that plaintiff's accident did not involve a gravity-related risk which was required by the

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 15 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 15]                                                   15 of 39
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           statute and that the video of the incident clearly shows that the gates did not fall due to being

           adequately secured, and actually closed under power and struck him, and then reopened.

                     "Labor Law§§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) apply to owners, contractors, and their agents." See

           Holijieldv Seraphim, LLC, 92 AD3d 841, 842 (2012) (citation omitted). "Labor Law§§ 240 (1)

           and 241 (6) impose absolute liability on contractors and owners and their agents for worker

           injuries on construction sites .... To hold a defendant liable under the Labor Law as a statutory

           agent of either the owner or the general contractor, it must be shown that the defendant had the

           authority to supervise and control the injury-producing work. The determinative factor is

           whether the defendant had the right to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually

           exercised that right." Santos v Condo 124 LLC, 161 AD3d 650,653 (1st Dept 2018) (citations

           and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Perez v 347 Lorimer, 84 AD3d 911, 912 (2d

           Dept 2011) (holding "[a] party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under

           the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done at the

           location a plaintiff is injured and must have the authority to control the activity bringing about

           the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition." [citations and internal

           quotation marks omitted]). Furthermore, "[o]nly 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." Russin v LoisN Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311,318

           (1981).

                     Here, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Rotavele had any supervisory control or authority

           over plaintiffs work. Furthermore, Mallia testified that Rotavele did not have contact with

           anyone conducting renovations on the building. Therefore, as plaintiff fails to show that

           Rotavele had the right to exercise control over the work, the part of plaintiffs complaint seeking

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 16 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 16]                                                    16 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           Labor Law § § 240 ( 1) and 241 (6) violations against Rotavele must be dismissed. Furthermore,

           the part ofRotavele's cross-motion seeking summary judgement as to the violations of Labor

           Law§§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) must be granted.

           Labor Law Section 241 (6)

                  Plaintiff contends that summary judgment must be granted as against the defendants as to

           his allegation that Labor Law § 241 (6) was violated.

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

                  11
                   [a]ll contractors and owners and their agents, ... when constructing or
                  demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith, shall
                  comply with the following requirements:
                                               ***
                  (6) All areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being
                  performed shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated
                  and conducted 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 on owners and contractors to provide

           reasonable and adequate protection for workers and to comply with specific safety rules which

           have been set forth by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor. St. Louis v. Town ofN.

           Elba, 16 NY3d 411, 413 (2011 ). In order to demonstrate liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241

           (6), it must be shown that the defendant violated a specific, applicable regulation of the Industrial

           Code, rather than a provision containing only generalized requirements. Nostrom v A. W.

           Chesterton Co., 15 NY3d 502,507 (2011).

           Industrial Code Section 23-1. 7 {a) (1)

                  Plaintiff contends that defendants violated section 23-1.7 (a) (1). Section 23-1.7 (a)

           provides:

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 17 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 17]                                                   17 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                  "(a) Overhead hazards.
                  (1) Every place where persons are required to work or pass that is normally
                  exposed to falling material or objects shall be provided with suitable overhead
                  protection. Such overhead protection shall consist of tightly laid sound planks at
                  least two inches thick full size, tightly laid three-quarter inch exterior grade
                  plywood or other material of equivalent strength. Such overhead protection shall
                  be provided with a supporting structure capable of supporting a loading of 100
                  pounds per square foot."

                  Industrial Code Rule§ 23-1.7 (a) (1) sets forth specific standards sufficient to sustain a

           cause of action under Labor Law§ 241 (6). See Zervos v City ofNew York, 8 AD3d 477,480

           (2d Dept 2004).

                  Plaintiff contends that section 23-1. 7 (a) (1) is applicable to the present case because this

           section provides requirements that where persons are required to work or pass in an area subject

           to falling material or objects, suitable overhead protection should be provided. Plaintiff contends

           that no such protection was provided to plaintiff when he used the building's freight elevator to

           transport debris.

                  In opposition to plaintiffs motion, and in support of their cross-motion, Board of

           Managers and Douglas Elliman contend that the elevator door at issue was not a falling object as

           it was closing at a mechanically slow rate of speed and not due to the force of gravity.

                  Here, plaintiff was exiting an elevator when his head was injured. Plaintiff fails to

           demonstrate how overhead protection consisting of tightly laid sound planks at least two inches

           thick full size, tightly laid three-quarter inch exterior grade plywood or other material of

           equivalent strength, could have been utilized in the elevator. Therefore, as this section of the

           Industrial Code is not applicable, the part of plaintiffs complaint alleging a violation of

           Industrial Code section 23-1.7 (a) (1) must be dismissed. Furthermore, the part of Board of

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 18 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 18]                                                   18 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           Managers' and Douglas Elliman's cross-motion seeking summary judgment dismissing this

           section of the Industrial Code must be granted.

           Industrial Code Section 23-1.8 (c) (1)

                  Plaintiff argues that defendants violated section 23-1.8 (c) (1) of the Industrial Code.

           Section 23-1.8 (c) (1) provides:

                  "(c) Protective apparel. (1) Head protection. Every person required to.work or
                  pass within any area where there is a danger of being struck by falling objects or
                  materials or where the hazard of head bumping exists shall be provided with and
                  shall be required to wear an approved safety hat. Such safety hats shall be
                  provided with liners during work in areas or at such times where the temperature
                  is below 55 degrees Fahrenheit."

                  A violation of Industrial Code section 23-1.8 (c) (1) has been held to be sufficiently

           specific to predicate a violation pursuant to Labor Law§ 241 (6). See Singh v 106-108 Bayard

           St. Corp., 200 AD2d 31, 31 (1st Dept 2002).

                  Plaintiff contends that Section 23-1.8 (c) (1) was violated because plaintiff was not

           wearing an approved safety hat at the time of his accident, defendants did not provide and/or

           require plaintiff to wear such a safety hat, and because plaintiff's head was struck by the freight

           elevator door/gate.

                  In opposition and in support of their cross-motion, Board of Managers and Douglas

           Elliman contend that plaintiff was not working in a position which required safety hats.

                  Here, a question of fact exists as to whether protective apparel should have been provided

           as it remains unclear if plaintiff was working in an area where there was a danger of falling

           objects or where head bumping existed. Therefore, the Court declines to grant summary

           judgment as to this section of the Industrial Code to either party.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 19 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 19]                                                   19 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           Industrial Code Section 23-2.1 (b)

                    Plaintiff argues that defendants violated Section 23-2.1 (b) of the Industrial Code.

           Section 23-2.1 (b) provides:

                    "(b) Disposal of debris. Debris shall be handled and disposed ofby methods that
                    will not endanger any person employed in the area of such disposal or any person
                    lawfully frequenting such area."

           Industrial Code Rule § 23-2. l (b) has been found to be sufficiently specific to support a Labor

           Law§ 241 (6) cause of action. See Dipalma v State ofNew York, 90 AD3d 1659, 1661 (4th Dept

           2011).

                    Here, plaintiff was injured while returning from transporting debris for disposal. It

           remains unclear to the Court if the method of disposing the debris, specifically utilizing a freight

           elevator without an operator, was proper or if it endangered the plaintiff as he was allegedly

           injured while entering back into the elevator. Therefore, as a question of fact exists as to

           whether Section 23-2. l (b) was violated, the Court denies this part of plaintiffs motion, and

           Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's cross-motion for summary judgment.

           Industrial Code Section 23-7.3 (e)

                    Plaintiff contends that defendants violated Section 23-7.3 (e) of the Industrial Code.

           Section 23-7.3 (e) provides:

                    "( e) Elevator operators. Such elevator cars shall be operated only by competent,
                    trained, designated persons."

                    Plaintiff contends that Section 23-7 .3 (e) was violated because defendants failed to

           provide a competent, trained and designated 24-hour elevator operator at the freight elevator.

           Plaintiff asserts that defendants were required to equip the freight elevator with a 24-hour

           elevator operator pursuant to the New York City Department of Buildings application sign on

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 20of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 20]                                                   20 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           sheet. Plaintiff alleges that the freight elevator was not operated by an operator or attendant

           when his accident occurred.

                  As Section 23-7.3 (e) only requires that an elevator shall be operated by competent,

           trained, designated persons, it is only a general statement of a common law requirement and is

           insufficient to establish a duty pursuant to the Labor Law§ 241 (6). See Bruno v Mall ]-Bay

           Plaza, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 33486 (U), * 15 (Sup Ct, NY County, 2019). Therefore, the part

           of plaintiffs complaint alleging a violation of Industrial Code Section 23-7 .3 (e) must be

           dismissed.

           Industrial Code Section 23-7.3 (f)

                  Plaintiff contends that defendants violated Section 23-7 .3 (f) which provides:

                  "(f) Testing. Prior to the initial use of any temporary elevator installed in a
                  permanent hoistway, such elevator shall be tested by a designated person. Such
                  testing shall be in accordance with the following requirements:

                  (1) The car of such elevator shall be loaded to its rated capacity and operated at its
                  rated speed to the upper and lower limits of its travel at least twice in order to test
                  the operation of the upper and lower automatic limit devices as well as the
                  operation of the hoisting machine brake at various levels of the hoistway.

                  (2) With the rated load in place, the car safeties shall be actuated by tripping the
                  governor by hand while the car is traveling downward at rated speed.

                  (3) Such test shall be repeated with no load at least once every month while the
                  elevator is in use by operating at a slow speed and tripping the governor by hand.

                  (4) A written report of each test shall be made and signed by the designated
                  person making such tests. Such reports shall include the dates, test loads and
                  speeds involved as well as the test results. Such written reports shall be kept in a
                  log book on the job site available for examination by the commissioner."

                  Plaintiff argues that defendants were aware that plaintiff was using the freight elevator

           and failed to ensure that the controller function and doors/gate were safe, and permitted the

           ongoing presence of a defectively installed and/or manufactured elevator, devoid of all safety

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 21 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 21]                                                   21 of 39
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           features, into use or service. Plaintiff contends that prior to his accident, the freight elevator was

           in constant need of repairs and that Rotavele maintained both the passenger and freight elevators

           for the building, pursuant to a maintenance contract, which included monthly inspections.

                  In opposition and in support of their cross-motion, Board of Managers and Douglas

           Elliman assert that this section of the Industrial Code is not applicable because the freight

           elevator was permanent and not temporary.

                  As Section 23-7.3 (f) applies to temporary elevators installed in a permanent hoistway

           and as the subject freight elevator was not a temporary elevator, Section 23-7.3 (f) is

           inapplicable. Therefore, the part of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment as to Industrial

           Code Section 23-7.3 (f) must be denied and the part of Board of Managers' and Douglas

           Elliman's cross-motion dismissing such section of the Industrial Code must be granted.

           Labor Law Section 200

                  Plaintiff contends that summary judgment must be granted as to defendants' cause of

           action for a violation of Labor Law § 200.

                  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) (citations omitted).

                  Labor Law § 200 ( 1) provides in part:

                  "[a]ll 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 .... "

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 22 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 22]                                                   22 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                  Liability pursuant to Labor Law § 200 may be based either upon the means and method

           by which the work is performed, or actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition

           inherent in the premises. When the accident arises from a dangerous condition on the property,

           the proponent of a Labor Law § 200 claim must demonstrate that the defendant created or had

           actual or constructive notice of the allegedly unsafe condition that caused the accident. See

           Murphy v Columbia Univ., 4 AD3d 200, 202 (1st Dept 2004).

                   In order to find an owner or his agent liable under Labor Law § 200 for defects or

           dangers arising from a subcontractor's method or manner, it must be shown that the owner or

           agent exercised some supervisory control over the injury-producing work. See Rizzuto v L.A.

           Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343,352 (1998); Jackson v Hunter Roberts Constr., L.L.C., 205

           AD3d 542, 543 (1st Dept 2022). "General supervisory authority is insufficient to constitute

           supervisory control; it must be demonstrated that the contractor controlled the manner in which

           the plaintiff performed his or her work, i.e., how the injury-producing work was performed."

           Hughes v Tishman Constr. Corp., 40 AD3d 305,306 (1st Dept 2007); Suconota v Knickerbocker

           Props., LLC, 116 AD3d 508,508 (1st Dept 2014); see also Mutadir v 80-90 Maiden Lane Del

           LLC, 110 AD3d 641,643 (1st Dept 2013).

                  Plaintiff alleges that defendants created a dangerous condition by failing to maintain and

           provide a safe work area. He argues that defendants' failure to provide reasonable and adequate

           protection to the safety of workers and a freight elevator operator required by the New York City

           Department of Buildings, led to plaintiffs accident. Plaintiff maintains that a New York City

           Department of Buildings application sign-off sheet provided that a 24-hour attendant should be

           present at the freight elevator at the aforesaid location and that testimony revealed that the

           building had an attendant operating the freight elevator for approximately four to five months

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 23 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 23]                                                   23 of 39
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           until November of 2010. He contends that the testimony further revealed that Board of

           Managers was informed, multiple times, that the freight elevator required an operator because it

           was not a passenger elevator.

                    Plaintiff argues that he testified that he operated the freight elevator himself, that the

           building never provided a designated operator for the freight elevator, that the building never

           presented him with any written procedure or protocols surrounding the use of the freight

           elevator, and that prior to removing garbage from the building's eighth floor, he would ask the

           building staff for permission first because tenants also used the freight elevator. Plaintiff asserts

           that the freight elevator was in constant need of repairs. Plaintiff contends that in 2011, there

           were seven times which the freight elevator was not working properly, as well as three times in

           the first few months of 2012. Plaintiff alleges that within the last six months leading up to his

           accident, Rotavele was contacted by building staff approximately six times because the freight

           elevator doors were not opening properly or had to be repaired for water damage. He maintains

           that additionally, on November 13, 2012, nearly two weeks before plaintiff's accident, the freight

           elevator doors would not close properly and defendant Rotavele was contacted to repair the

           issue.

                    Plaintiff argues that defendants had notice of the freight elevator's condition and that if

           the freight elevator's detector device was functioning properly, plaintiff's accident would not

           have occurred. He claims argues that defendants owed him a duty to correct any unsafe

           condition that they created, as well as any unsafe condition known to them or their employees.

           Further, defendants owed a duty to conduct reasonable inspections of the freight elevator.

                    In opposition to plaintiffs motion and in support of their cross-motion, Board of

           Managers and Douglas Elliman contend that summary judgment should be granted as plaintiff

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                    Page 24of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 24]                                                    24 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           was the sole proximate cause of his injury and because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that

           these defendants controlled the means and methods of plaintiffs work as they did not have the

           authority to supervise or control the performance of the work. They argue that ZMK never had

           any communications with these defendants regarding the renovation and that they did not control

           the means or methods of plaintiff's work.

                   With regards to notice, defendants contend that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that

           Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman had notice of the dangerous condition of the elevator.

           They argue that while plaintiff points to the fact that the freight elevators were periodically in

           need of repairs and maintenance, plaintiff has failed to show any connection between any

           previous maintenance and plaintiff's accident. They maintain that after watching the video of

           the accident, Mallia confirmed that the elevator door was working properly at the time of the

           accident, and that plaintiffs injuries were the result of him failing to use the proper entrance into

           the elevator.

                   Here, a question of fact exists as to whether defendants had notice of the condition of the

           elevator which may have contributed to plaintiff's accident. Slapar, 200 Eleventh Avenue

           Condominium's resident manager, testified that prior to plaintiffs accident, he did not learn of

           any complaints related to the exiting doors closing on anyone. However, plaintiffs testimony

           suggests that defendants may have been on notice regarding problematic conditions with the

           doors of the subject freight elevator. Plaintiff testified:

                  "Q. Prior to your accident, did you ever notice anything defective or wrong with
                  regard to the elevator doors that brings us here today?
                  A. Doors were too fast closing. I brought it to Andre the super's attention. I
                  think that's his name.
                  Q. When you say the doors, do you mean the metal gate that comes down, or the
                  doors that go from side to side and close in the center?

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 25of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 25]                                                    25 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                  A. I think both. At one time, they closed too fast. He ordered the maintenance
                  crew to come and try to fix it. He did.
                  Q. Who did you speak to from 200 Eleventh?
                  A. Andre. Is that his name, Andre? He's the building super. He's still there. I
                  mean the last time I went for inspection.
                  Q. When did you tell him, a day before your accident the morning of, something
                  else?
                  A. We've had conversations because he needed a desk done. It was
                  conversations that would come up. He would allow me as site supervisor to use
                  the regular elevator, which was nice of him.
                  Q. I'm talking about the elevator that was for the car lift. I'm not taking about
                  the other elevator.
                  A. He would shut it down and tell us there were problems with the elevator.
                  Q. Which elevator?
                  A. The freight, the one that takes car [sic] up. He would tell us ahead of time, "If
                  you 're going to get some material in, it has to be before such and such day
                  because we're shutting it down because there are issues with it."
                  Q. Do you know how many times he shut down the elevator prior to your
                  accident?
                  A. That I can recall, four?
                  Q. Four times?
                  A. Yeah. I would have to look at my reports from back then, the daily reports I
                  have with the company, because I have daily reports of what goes on on the
                  jobsite."

                  NYSCEF Doc. No. 178, tr at 362-365.

                  Furthermore, plaintiff testified that he was told by the superintendent that someone was

           hurt before and that they would have to fix the lack of warning sound on the elevator door.

                  Along with the testimony which demonstrates that the defendants may have been on

           notice of doors closing too fast and that the elevator was shut down four times, the record

           includes a document entitled "City of New York Department of Buildings Freight & Sidewalk

           Elevator Inspection Certificate" which specifies that it is for freight elevator "lf 10246" at "200

           11 Avenue" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 181). Along with providing an inspection date, the document

           specifies, "[t]his is not a passenger elevator. It is unlawful for any person other than the operator

           or those necessary for handling freight to ride on this elevator." Id.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 26 of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 26]                                                   26 of 39
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                   It is unclear from the record why the building was allowing plaintiff to utilize the elevator

           if his use was prohibited by the Department of Buildings as plaintiff was not moving freight and

           was not an elevator operator. In fact, Mallia testified that the building was aware of the use of

           the elevator as he testified that "[i]t is a freight elevator. It is supposed to be run by an operator,

           not a passenger elevator. They were using it for construction. Passengers were in there. I did

           tell Andre a couple of times" (Mallia EBT, at 50).

                  Furthermore, the elevator call log references that a call on November 13, 2012, states that

           the "freight elevator rear door not closing completely" and "service man will be here as soon as

           they can as per Linda ( dispatcher)" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 181 ). Slapar testified that between

           November 13, 2012, and the day of plaintiffs accident, Rotavele would have corrected the

           problem; however, the testimony lacks specificity and he testified that it was "reasonable to

           think" that Rotavele would have been present to correct the problem, and testified that he had no

           recollection of Rotavele not showing up. Yet, his testimony is inconclusive as to whether he had

           knowledge that Rotavele resolved the issue as he failed to testify that he observed workers or

           was present when it was repaired.

                  Slapar also testified that he recalls instructing plaintiff on how to use the freight elevator,

           however, he did not recall providing instructions about exiting the freight elevator on the ground

           floor and bringing the garbage out of the elevator.

                  Therefore, as questions of fact exists as to whether the defendants Board of Managers and

           Douglas Elliman were on notice of the condition of the elevator, the part of plaintiffs summary

           judgment alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200, and the part of Board of Managers' and

           Douglas Elliman's cross-motion seeking to dismiss the cause of action for Labor Law § 200

           must be denied.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                    Page 27 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 27]                                                    27 of 39
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           Rotavele's Cross-Motion

                  In opposition to the part of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment and in support

           of its own cross-motion for summary judgment, Rotaveie·contends that plaintiff's claims for

           common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 should be dismissed because this work was not

           part of the construction in the building; Rotavele did not owe any duty of care to plaintiff and did

           not supervise or control the manner in which plaintiff worked. Rotavele argues that there is no

           evidence that any calls to Rotavele addressed complaints or repairs related to falling doors/gates

           or issues with the elevator light curtain prior to the incident. Rotavele asserts that prior to the

           construction project involving plaintiff, Rotavele was providing general maintenance to the

           building's elevators and that its contract had nothing to do with a renovation project within the

           building.

                  While Rotavele is not an owner or a general contractor of the construction project, and

           did not supervise the work of plaintiff or anyone else at the site, a question remains as to whether

           Rotavele may have been negligent pursuant to the common law in its maintenance of the subject

           elevator and whether it had any notice of any issues with the elevator. "An elevator company

           which agrees to maintain an elevator in safe operating condition may be liable to a passenger for

           failure to correct conditions of which it has knowledge or failure to use reasonable care to

           discover and correct a condition which it ought to have found." Rogers v Dorchester Associates,

           32 NY2d 553, 559 (1973).

                  Rotavele submits an affidavit from McPartland which states that based upon his review

           of documents, which included the elevator maintenance and repair records, it is his opinion that

           the accident "did not occur due to any malfunction or defect involving any components of the

           elevator" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 285, tr at 6-7).

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                   Page 28 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 28]                                                   28 of 39
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                   However, this affidavit conflicts with that of plaintiffs expert, Carrajat. Carrajat states

           that "[t]he records of Rotavele do not delineate what maintenance was performed on the subject

           elevator" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 196, tr at 6). Furthermore, Carrajat concludes that "[i]t is my

           opinion to a reasonable degree of mechanical certainty that a power-driven gate does not strike a

           person in the normal operation of the device absent negligence in its maintenance" (Id., tr at 7).

                  Along with the conflicting expert affidavits, it is also unclear from the testimony whether

           a warning sound, which was to alert individuals that the elevator was closing, was functioning

           properly. While plaintiff testified that he did not hear any warning sound alerting him that the

           elevator doors were closing, Mallia testified that prior to November 26, 2012, there were not any

           problems with the sound which was generated prior to the doors closing.

                  Mallia' s testimony is also unclear about certain testing which was to take place on the

           elevators. Mallia testified that he was not sure when category testing was completed prior to

           plaintiffs accident, which could be conducted by a secondary agency and which reviews all of

           the switches, doors, zone restricters, and physical safety of the car. He also did not recall if the

           safety curtain device was repaired or replaced in any way.

                  According to a record produced, the freight elevator doors were not closing as of

           November 13, 2012. While plaintiff testified that the elevator had to be shut down four times

           while he was working at the location, the elevator call log is unclear as to the reasons it was shut

           down from service all four times and whether it had anything to do with maintenance.

                  Therefore, as questions of fact exist, the part of plaintiffs motion seeking summary

           judgment for common law negligence as against Rotavele must be denied, and the part of

           Rotavele's motion seeking to dismiss the claims for common law negligence must be denied.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 29of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 29]                                                   29 of 39
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                  Rotavele also contends in its cross-motion that Board of Managers' claims for contractual

           indemnification against it must be dismissed, as Rotavele's agreement with Board of Managers

           contains no written contractual indemnification language. Board of Managers and Douglas

           Elliman fail to oppose this argument and to demonstrate whether an indemnification agreement

           existed. Therefore, the part ofRotavele's cross-motion seeking summary judgment dismissing

           Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's claim for contractual indemnification against

           Rotavele must be granted.

                  With regards to Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's claims for common law

           indemnification, Rotavele contends that the Board of Managers' and ZMK's claims against

           Rotavele should be dismissed because there is no evidence of any negligence by Rotavele, that

           Rotavele was not contacted as a result of the accident, that Rotavele did not need to make any

           repairs as a result of the accident, and because the actual negligence of Board of Managers and

           ZMK would preclude any claims of common law indemnification.

                  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 v Professional Data Mgt., 259 AD2d 60, 65 (1st Dept 1999).

                  As a question of fact exists as to whetherRotavele, Board of Managers or ZMK were

           negligent, the part of Rotavele's cross-motion seeking summary judgment as to the claims for

           common law indemnification must be denied.

            16105912013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                Page 30 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 30]                                                   30 of 39
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           ZMK's Cross-Motion

                  ZMK cross-moves, and contends that Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman' s cause

           of action for contribution and common law indemnification as against ZMK must be dismissed,

           as plaintiff has not suffered a grave injury pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10 ( 1)

           and 11. ZMK argues that it is well settled in New York that a plaintiff/employee cannot directly

           sue his or her employer if the employer complied with the Workers Compensation Law.

                  Section 11 of the New York Workers' Compensation Law provides, in relevant part:

                  "[a]n employer shall not be liable for contribution or indemnity to any third
                  person based upon liability for injuries sustained by an employee acting within the
                  scope of his or her employment for such employer unless such third person proves
                  through competent medical evidence that such employee has sustained a 'grave
                  injury' which shall mean only one or more of the following: 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."

           NY CLS Work Comp § 11.

                  The Court of Appeals has held that "[t]he grave injuries listed are deliberately both

           narrowly and completely described. The list is exhaustive, not illustrative; it is not intended to

           be extended absent further legislative action." Castro v United Container Mach. Group, 96

           NY2d 398,402 (2001) (citation omitted). A brain injury results in "permanent total disability

           when the evidence establishes that a worker is not employable in any capacity." Rubeis v Aqua

           Club, Inc., 3 NY3d 408,413 (2004).

                  ZMK contends that it is undisputed that ZMK was plaintiff's employer at the time of the

           alleged accident and that plaintiff received Workers' Compensation benefits as a result of such

           accident. ZMK maintains that plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries to his cervical and

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 31 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 31]                                                   31 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           lumbar spine, underwent an U-L5 anterior/posterior fusion with laminectomy, and that he

           sustained several disc bulges and herniations. ZMK argues that plaintiff's only claim to having a

           grave injury consists of his allegation that he sustained a traumatic brain injury as the other

           injuries alleged by his bill of particulars do not constitute grave injuries under the Workers'

           Compensation Law.

                  ZMK asserts that plaintiff was examined by two independent physicians, Dr. Johnathan

           Garay (Dr. Garay), a Diplomate of the American Osteopathic Board of Physical Medicine and

           Rehabilitation, and Dr. William Barr (Dr. Barr), the Director of the Neuropsychology Division of

           the NYU School of Medicine's Department of Neurology. ZMK maintains that Dr. Garay found

           that there is no casually related cervical or lumbar impairment with respect to plaintiffs instant

           accident and alleged injuries, and that plaintiffs medical records demonstrated that he did not

           seek medical attention immediately following the accident, that he did not lose consciousness

           following the accident, and that he refused a CT scan.

                  ZMK contends that Dr. Garay opined that the absence of objective signs of a trauma to

           plaintiff's head on his initial exam is also inconsistent with a significant contusion and is

           inconsistent with a traumatic brain injury. ZMK claims that Dr. Garay noted that plaintiffs

           initial exams were without signs of any objective neurological findings to suggest a traumatic

           brain injury and that the subsequent CT scan of the brain was without signs of a trauma, and that

           there were no objective neurological deficits.

                  ZMK argues that Dr. Barr maintains that based on the direct examination of plaintiff and

           a review of medical records that there is no valid test data from this evaluation or from any other

           source indicating that plaintiff suffered from any persisting cognitive or psychological effects of

           brain trauma secondary to the work-related accident on November 26, 2012. ZMK contends that

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page32 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 32]                                                   32 of 39
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           Dr. Barr further found that'there is no objective evidence to support claims of any cognitive or

           psychological impairment or permanent functional disturbance resulting from injuries sustained

           on November 26, 2012.

                  ZMK argues that defendants' experts make clear that plaintiffs medical records contain

           no objective clinical data or evidence of a brain injury or neurological condition attributable to

           the instant accident. They maintain that ZMK has demonstrated a prima facie showing that

           plaintiff did not sustain a grave injury pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law §11 and that,

           therefore, the Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's third-party claims for common law

           indemnification and contribution must be dismissed.

                  Here, Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman fail to oppose such argument of ZMK or

           demonstrate that plaintiff suffered a grave injury. Therefore, the part of ZMK's cross-motion

           seeking to dismiss Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's causes of action for contribution

           and common law indemnification as against ZMK must be granted.

                  ZMK argues that it is also entitled to summary judgment as to Board of Managers' and

           Douglas Elliman's claims for contractual indemnification and breach of contract as against it.

                  The Appellate Division, First Department, has held that "'the intention to indemnify

           [must] be clearly implied from the language and purposes of the entire agreement and the

           surrounding facts and circumstances."' Masciotta v Morse Diesel Intl., 303 AD2d 309, 310 (1st

           Dept 2003), quoting Drzewinski v Atlantic Scaffold & Ladder Co., 70 NY2d 774, 777 (1987).

           "In contractual indemnification, the one seeking indemnity need only establish that it was free

           from any negligence and was held liable solely by virtue of the statutory liability. Whether or

           not the proposed indemnitor was negligent is a non-issue and irrelevant." Correia v Professional

           Data Mgt., 259 AD2d at 65.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                 Page 33 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 33]                                                   33 of 39
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                  ZMK contends that there was no contract or indemnification agreement entered into by

           ZMK relative to its work on this project at the subject apartment. ZMK argues that Board of

           Managers fails to set forth any party testimony to establish an intention by ZMK to enter into a

           contract or indemnification agreement. ZMK claims that the testimony of Kaplan and Conrad

           establishes that there was not a separate contract or agreement between ZMK and the Board of

           Managers and that Conrad hired ZMK to perform renovation work to the subject apartment.

           Kaplan testified that he did not sign an indemnification agreement with the Board of Managers.

                  ZMK asserts that while the Board of Managers alleges that Kaplan signed a contract

           which included an indemnification agreement on behalf of ZMK, ZMK submits an affidavit from

           Ryan, a board-certified forensic document examiner expert, who reviewed the purported

           indemnification agreement and exemplary signatures of Kaplan. ZMK argues that Ryan opines

           that the signature on the "Contractor's Indemnification & Insurance Requirements" is not the

           signature of Kaplan. ZMK contends that, consistent with the testimony of Kaplan and the expert

           opinion of Ryan, ZMK has demonstrated that there was no contract or indemnification

           agreement entered into by ZMK relative to its work on the project.

                  In opposition, the Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman argue that ZMK is not

           entitled to the dismissal of the contractual indemnity claims. They maintain that the contract

           provides that ZMK must indemnify Board of Managers for all claims connected with or arising

           directly or indirectly out of the activities, performance, or non-performance of the work of ZMK.

           They claim that the indemnity agreement between Board of Managers and ZMK is clear and

           unambiguous, and that there is no reason to believe that Kaplan's signature is a forgery.

                  Here, Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman, as well as ZMK, submit expert affidavits

           which raise a question of fact as to whether there was an indemnification agreement and contract

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                               Page 34of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 34]                                                   34 of 39
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           in place. In support of ZMK, Ryan submits an affidavit which states that based upon his review

           of the exemplar signatures of Kaplan and his comparison of the signatures to a purported

           indemnification agreement disclosed by Board of Managers, it is highly probable and virtually

           certain that the signature set forth on the purported indemnification agreement is not the

           signature of Kaplan. Conversely, Luber submits an affidavit which states that he has examined

           the known signatures of Kaplan and the questioned signature on the indemnification agreement,

           and concludes that there is not enough available evidence basis for Ryan to reach his conclusions

           that Kaplan's signature is not genuine.

                  As a question of fact exists from the disputed testimony and expert affidavits as to

           whether the indemnification agreement was agreed to and signed by Kaplan, the part of ZMK's

           motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for contractual indemnification and breach

           of contract must be denied.

           Motion Sequence 008

                  Conrad and Cohen argue that Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's cause of action

           for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance must be dismissed. They contend that

           the condominium bylaws governing the relationship between 200 Eleventh Avenue

           Condominium and Conrad and Cohen do not require the second-third party defendants to

           procure insurance and that, therefore, no contract was breached.

                  In opposition, Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman fail to demonstrate how Conrad

           and Cohen breached a contract and failed to procure insurance. ·See Genovese v Gambino, 309

           AD2d 832, 833 (2d Dept 2003). Therefore, the part of Conrad and Cohen's motion seeking to

           dismiss Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman' s cause of action for breach of contract for

           failing to procure insurance must be granted.

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                Page 35 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 35]                                                   35 of 39
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

                   Conrad and Cohen contend that Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's cause of

           action for common law indemnification must be dismissed as there is no evidence that they were

           negligent. They argue that plaintiff was the foreman and in charge of the means and methods,

           and ZMK testified that Conrad and Cohen did not direct or control, or provide any material

           equipment of supplies. Kaplan specifically testified that neither Conrad nor Cohen told the

           workers how to conduct their jobs and Conrad testified that neither he, his wife, nor anyone

           under his direction or authority supervised and controlled the work performed by ZMK Group.

                  In opposition, Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman fail to demonstrate that Conrad

           and Cohen controlled the injury producing work of plaintiff or had any notice of problems with

           the subject elevator. Furthermore, Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman fail to demonstrate

           that Conrad or Cohen contributed to plaintiffs accident. See McCarthy v Turner Constr. Inc., 17

           NY3d 369, 378 (2011) ("[t]hus, if a party with contractual authority to direct and supervise the

           work at a job site never exercises that authority because it subcontracted its contractual duties to

           an entity that actually directed and supervised the work, a common-law indemnification claim

           will not lie against that party on the basis of its contractual authority alone").

                  Therefore, as Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman fail to meet their burden to

           demonstrate that either Conrad or Cohen actually directed and supervised the work of plaintiff or

           were negligent, their causes of action for common law indemnification and contribution must be

           dismissed.

                  Conrad and Cohen also contend that they are entitled to summary judgment dismissing

           Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's cause of action for contractual indemnification.

           Conrad and Cohen claim that Section 6.11.2 of the bylaws of 200 Eleventh Avenue

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                     Page 36 of 39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 36]                                                    36 of 39
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           Condominium, the building in which they own a residence, includes an indemnification

           agreement which provides:

                  "[a]ll structural alterations, additions and improvements by Unit Owners shall be
                  made in compliance with all laws, rules, ordinances and regulations of all
                  governmental authorities having jurisdiction thereof. A Unit Owner making or
                  causing to be made any structural alteration, addition or improvement shall agree,
                  and shall be deemed to have agreed, to hold the Board and all other Unit Owners
                  harmless from any liability arising therefrom."

                  Conrad and Cohen argue that the indemnification provision violates the General

           Obligations Law and should be deemed void.

                  General Obligations Law §5-322.1, provides:

                  "[e]very covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with or
                  collateral to any lease of real property exempting the lessor from liability for
                  damages for injuries to person or property caused by or resulting from the
                  negligence of the lessor, his agents, servants or employees, in the operation or
                  maintenance of the demised premises or the real property containing the demised
                  premises shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly
                  unenforceable."

                  In opposition, Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman assert that the indemnity

           provision complies with the General Obligations Law. They maintain that Conrad and

           Cohen should provide them with indemnification for plaintiff's accident. They argue that

           because Conrad was responsible for structural alterations, additions and improvements,

           Conrad must indemnify Board of Managers. They contend that there is no question that

           plaintiffs alleged incident giving rise to this litigation arose out of and resulted from the

           work being performed by ZMK under its contract with Conrad.

                  Here, whether Board of Managers and Douglas Elliman are negligent and have any

           liability has not yet been determined, as issues of fact exist as to the cause of plaintiffs accident.

           Therefore, as no finding has yet been made regarding the fault for plaintiffs alleged injuries,

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                  Page 37 of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 37]                                                   37 of 39
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           summary judgment as to the claims for contractual indemnification would be premature. See

           Maxwell v Toys "R" Us, 258 AD2d 630,630 (2d Dept 1999); Cackett v Gladden Props., LLC,

           183 AD3d 419,422 (1st Dept 2020).

                                           CONCLUSION

                     Accordingly, it is

                     ORDERED that plaintiff Alan Rivera's motion, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to strike the

           answer of second third-party defendants Conrad and Cohen, is denied as moot; and it is further

                     ORDERED that plaintiff Alan Rivera's motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is

           further

                     ORDERED that ZMK Group Inc.'s cross-motion is granted only to the extent that Board

           of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's cause of action for contribution and common law

           indemnification as against ZMK are dismissed; and it is further

                     ORDERED that Rotavele Elevator, Inc. 's cross-motion for summary judgment is granted

           only as to the causes of action for violations of Labor Law§§ 200,240 (1) and 241 (6), which

           are dismissed, and Board of Managers' and Douglas Elliman's claim for contractual

           indemnification as against Rotavele Elevator, Inc. is dismissed; and it is further

                     ORDERED that the part of defendants/third party plaintiffs/second third-party plaintiffs

           Board of Managers 200 Eleventh A venue Condominiums' and Douglas Elliman Property

           Manager's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for violations of Labor

           Law§ 240 (1) and Industrial Code Sections 23-1.7 (a) (1), 23-7.3 (e), and 23-7.3 (f) is granted;

           and it is further

                     ORDERED that Andrew Conrad's and Hay Lynn Cohen's motion (sequence 008) for

           summary judgment is granted in part to the extent that Board of Managers' and Douglas

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                Page38 of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 38]                                                   38 of 39
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 161059/2013
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 355                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/22/2024

           Elliman's causes of action for common law indemnification, contribution, and for breach of

           contract for failing to procure insurance are dismissed.

                   This constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.

                   1/22/2024
                     DATE                                                     James d'Auguste, J.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

            161059/2013 RIVERA, ALAN vs. ROTAVELE ELEVATOR, INC.                                   Page 39 of39
            Motion No. 007 008

[* 39]                                                   39 of 39