Court Opinion

ID: 9952482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:09:34.165649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:43.598072
License: Public Domain

Cotroneo v Van Wagner Sign Erectors, LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30811(U)
                     March 13, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 162038/2015
                 Judge: Mary V. Rosado
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                                                                          INDEX NO. 162038/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492                                                                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

                                                 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                                           NEW YORK COUNTY

            PRESENT:                         HON.MARYV.ROSADO                                                                                         PART                               33M
                                                                                                                                          Justke
            _____________ ._ .. -. .. Te---------------------------------------------•••• o.n -----X                                                                      162038/2015
                                                                                                                                                      INDEX NO.

             COSMO COTRONEO.
                                                                                                                                                      MOTION DATE          05/04/2023
                                                                                             Plaintiff,
                                                                                                                                                      MOTION SEQ. NO. _ __.:0:.=0-=.9_ _
                                                                             - V -

             VAN WAGNER SIGN ERECTORS. LLC. NIK/A OUTFRONT
             MEDIA SIGN ERECTORS. LLC., VAN WAGNER
             ELECTRICAL AND MAINTENANCE, LLC. N/KJA
             OUTFRONT MEDIA ELECTRICAL AND MAINTENANCE.
             LLC., VAN WAGNER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC. N/K/A                                                                                                DECISION + ORDER ON
             OUTFRONT MEDIA Vi/V COMMUNICATIONS, L LC.,                                                                                                        MOTION
             VORNADO REAL TY TRUST. VORNADO OFFICE.
             INC .. VORNADO SlGN. LLC,ONE PENN PLAZA LLC .•

                                                                                             Defendant.

             CROSS MANAGEMENT CORP.                                                                                                                                To ird-Pa rty
                                                                                                                                                             Index No. 595393/2016
                                                                                               Plaintiff,

                                                                               -against-

             NEAD ELECTRlC OF NEW JERSEY. INC.

                                                                                               Defendant.
             -------·-   -~· -   - - OT- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · ~ - - -   -~-.---------------X

             VAN WAGNER SIGN ERECTORS, LLC N/KJA OUTFRONT                                                                                                      Second Third-Party
             MEDIA SIGN ERECTORS, LlC.                                                                                                                       Index No. 59550412019

                                                                                               Plaintiff,

                                                                               -against-

              NEAD ELECTRlC OF NEW JERSEY, tNC.

                                                                                               Defendant.
             ---------------------------· ·-· •• ·~~-~------------------------------ --- -~- •• X

             VORNADO REALTY TRUST, VORNADO OFFICE, INC.,                                                                                                        Third Third-Party
             VORNADO SIGN, LLC, ONE PENN PLAZA LLC                                                                                                           Index No. 596052/2020

                                                                                               Plaintiff,

                                                                               -against-

             162038-/2015 COTRONEO, COSIYIO v:s. OUTFRONT MEDIA SIGN ERECTORS                                                                                              Page 1 of g
             Motion No. 009

[* 1]                                                                                                                            1 of 9
                                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 162038/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

             NEAD ELECTRIC, INC, NEAD ELECTRIC OF NEW JERSEY,
             INC.

                                                     Defendant.
             -------------------------------~·~-----------------------------.--••r.- X

            The followmg e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number {Motion 009) 433, 434, 435, 436,
            437,438,439,440,441,442,443,444. 445,446,447,448,449,450.451, 452,453,454,455.456,457.
            458,459,460,461,462,463,464,465,466,467,468,469,470,471.472, 473,474,475,476,477,478.
            479,480.481. 482,483,484 485,486,487,488.489, 490
            were read on this motion to/for                                          JUDGMENT-SUMMARY:..__ __
                     Upon 1hc foregoing documents, ·11tird-Party Defendants/Second Third-Party

            Defendants/Third Third-Party Oefcndants Nead Electric, rnc. and Nead Electric, Inc. i/s/h/a

            Nead Electric of K e\v J~rsey, Jnc.' s ( co!lccti vely "l\ cad") motion for an Order granting l\ cad

            summary judgmtnt dismissing the Third-Party (~YSCEf Doc. 444), Second Third-Puny

            (NYSCIT Doc. 445) Third Third-Party (NYSCFF Due. 446) claims, cross-daims. and counter-

            d aim~ asserted against it is denied.

                I.          Backgrou ntl

                     Plaintiff Cosmo Cotroneo ("'Plaintiff") cmmnenced this action fol' alleged injury sustained

            on or about February 14, 2013 1 \Vhile working as. an electrician for Nead at a construction project

            located al 4.10 Seventh Avenue in Manhattan {the ·•Premises" or I.he "Site'') ov,,ned an<l managed

            by Dcfcndants!Third Third-Party Plaintiffs Vomudo Realty Trust and One Penn Plaza, LLC

            (NYSCEF Ooc. 466 at ii 4).

                     Ocfcndant/Sec:onJ Third•Party Plaintiff Outfront Media Sign Erectors~ LLC f/kla Van

            Wagm:r Sign Erectors, I.LC (·Outfront"_) was retained hy Vornado to perfom1 work to convert a

            : The nriginal Ctunplaint and Dill of Particu!ars st:rvcd by Pbcntiff aHcgcd that the date of the accident was February
            17, 20 l 3. Ddt:ndants disputed this date, noting that it was .i Siinclay (NYSCEF lJ-oc. 397, ,- J 6), Ry OrJer Jatcd
            January :?3, 2019, tilis Court directed PlaintitTto file an Amended Summons and Complaint with the wrrcc{ed date
            n r Lhe ace id(:m ( NYSC FF Doc. ! 77). The date was determ incd to he February 14, 20 D based on timc sheet records
            [Jf Plaimiff's employ~r (>JYSCFF Doc 3 77).

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

                                                                    2 of 9
[* 2]
                                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 162038/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

            vinyJ, "static" rooftop sign to a digital advertising sign (N YSCLF Doc. 466 at 1 4). Outfro11t

            suhsequenlly retained Nead to pcrfonn electrical power in~tul lalion for the sign (Id.). Plaintiff and

            his workers were ta~kcd with ''Joading tools and equipment into the 'foreman's helper' gang box,

            which v.·ould then serve as a 'boat' to be hoisted hy a crane ... lo the roof' (NYSCEF Doc. 46 at ii

            7).

                      Plaintiff alleges that on Fchruary 17, 20 t 3, he sustained severe and permanent injurtcs due

            to a <ldedive and (fongerous gang box (NYSCEF Doc. 440 at,.- 71). Spcc:iticully, Plaintiff alJeges

            th at on the sidewalk at or near the Premises, he was struck by the lid of a "foreman) s hcl per'° gang

            box whtk in the l:ourse or his employment with Nead (~ YSC I~F Doc. 466 at .- ! 0).

                      Plaintiff commenced the underlying action on November 20, 2015, by filing a Summons

            and Complaint asserting rnrnmon law negligence, and violations                 or I ,abor I .aw Secl1ons 200, 240,
            and 241 ( 6) agaJnst Defendants Vornado Realty Trust (Vornado"). One Penn Plaza, LLC,

            Outfront, Tom Recknwald Construction. Inc, North Shore J\con Sign Co., Tne., and Cross

            Jvfonagcmcnt Corp ('·Defendants") (>J"YSCFF Doc. 440). 2

                      Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Cross Management Corp. filed a Third-Party Sllmmons

            und Complaint against Nead dated VJay 19, 2016 (NYSCEF Doc. 444).· 1 Thereafter, Outfront Wed

            a Second Third-Party Summons and Complaint agains.t Nead dated June 12, 2019, us5erting crmses

            of action for common law and contrn~tual im.lemnificHtion, and contribution and breach of contract

            (N"YSCEF Doc. 445). Subsequently, Dcfcndants./Third Third-Party Plaintiffs Vornado Realty

            Trust, Vornado Office, inc., Vornado Sign. I.LC anJ One Penn Plaza, I.LC (collectively "Third

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

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

                                                                  3 of 9
[* 3]
                                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 162038/20l5
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

           Third-Party Plaintiffs~·) filed a Third-Party Summons and V~rified Third~Party Complaint

           (NYSCEF Doc. 446) usserting causes of action for contractual indemnity, common la\v indemnity,

           comribu.lion and breach of wntract against Nead.

                       On May 4, 2023) Nead brought the instant motion for fill ()rJcr gn.mting Nead summary

           judgment dismissing the Third-Purly. Second Third-Party and Third lhird-Parly claims. cross-

           claims and counter claims asserted against it {NYSCEP Doc. 433). Outfrcmt filed an Ailim1alion

           in Opposition w NcaJ's motion dated Ju!y 24, 2023 (); YSCEF Doc. 470). Plaintjff suhminc-J an

           Affirmation in Opposition to Nead's motion dated July 28, 2023 (NYSCEF Orn:. 475). Third

           Third-Party Plainti lls submitted an Affirmation in Opposition 10 Nea<l" ~ motion on Augu:'il 1 I,

           2023 (~YSCEf Doc. 488). 4

                 II.      l)jsrns~itm

                          A. Standard

                       Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. to be granted only where the movtng party has

           tendered sufficient cvidem::e to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.') ( Vega v

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

           on u motion for summary judgment, facts must be vi~,ved in the light most favorable to the non-

           moving party." (],,cob.sen v New fork City Health and 1lnsp.v. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 12014D-

           Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the pm1y opposing the mntion to produce

           cvidcntiary proof, in admissible form, suflicient to establish the exi.'jtence of material issues of fact

           which require a trial.       (See e.g . :Lucker man v City of New York. 49 ~Y~J 557, 562 [ I 980];

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

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

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

[* 4]                                                              4 of 9
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 162038/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

            law or fact arc insufficient to defeal a motion for summary judgment (see Bunco Popular ;Vorth

            Am. v Vicrory Taxi }vfgt., Inc., 1 NY3J 38 l 12004.1),

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

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

            party indemnification or contribution daims against employers, exci::pl \vhcre the employee

            sustained a 'grave injury.' or the clajm is ~based upon a provision in a written contract enlercd into

            prior to the accident or O'.:currcnce by which the employer had expressly agreed to contribution to

            or indemnification of the daimant or person as::;,erting the cause of action" (Rodriguez v .N&.\' B1dg.

            Contrs., inc .• 5 KY3d 427. 430 [2005]).

                                   1.   No Written Contract Containing a Valid Contractual Indemnity
                                        Provision Exists

                   :-.Jcad appeals to \VCL § 11 in support of its argument that, as the Plaintiff's cmploycl', aH

            daims. again-;t it must be dismissed because 110 valid and cnforceabk contractual indemnity

            pmvision exists (NYSCEF Doc. 434 at p. 14). At the outset. Outfront argues in opposition that

            Nead has failed to meet its prima facie burden for summary judgment by failing to proffer

            admi'lsiblc evidc-ncc to suppon ib daim that no contractual agrei;:mcnt including an indemn1ty

            provision exists (l\YSCEF Doc. 470 at p. 3). Specific(11ly, Outfrnnt contends that Nead has failed

            lo demons1ratc. through admissible evidence, that Nead· s Proposal for \l,/mk (the ''Proposal'')

            ().l"YSCEF Doc. 457) is a full and complete copy or the proposal between the parties (NYSCLJ<'

            Due. 470 at ~i 11).

                   The Court of Appeul s has held that "l\v]hcther the parties did in fact have such an

            agreement involves a tv,m-1Mrt inquiry. First, we consider \vhether the parties entered into a \vri Lten

            contract containing an indemnl ty provision apphcable to the site or job where the injury giving

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

                                                           5 of 9
[* 5]
                                                                                                         INDEX NO. 162038/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

            rise to the indemnity claim took place. Second, if so, \Ve examine whether the indemnity provision

            was su ffi ci ent Iy particular to meet the rcq ui rem en ts of sect ion 11" (Rodriguez at 432).

                     Here, the deposition testimony of Andrew II.o]tzer (NYSCEF Doc. 455), the Vice President

            of Design and T cchno logy for Outfront, estahlished that Mr. Hull/er acknowledged that the

            Proposal was sent to him in the regular cour~ of business and that when he received the Proposal

            [n the regular course of business, he reviewed it with Eli Zamek, of Vornado, and was told to

            proceed (NYSCEF Dm:. 455, pp. 62: l48; l 59}(/Jank ofA.merica, /1/ar. Ass 'n v Brannon~ 156 A.D3d

            l [ l st Dt:pl 201 71 rrecords admis:-1ihlc rl if the r~cipient can estabhsh .. ' that the records provided

            by the maker \verc incorporated into the recipient's O\Vn r~cords or routinely relied upon by 1hc

            re~i pi en t in its business" J.

                     Contrary to the assertions of Outfronl, Mr. Holtzer' s te~tirnony dcmonsm1tes personal

            knowledge of the proposal which is the ba<:,is of the contractual relationship hetwecn movam and

            Outfrom and v.--hich, significantly, contained no ind~mnity provision. Accordingly, N~ud has

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

            which it had expressly agreed to contribution or indemnification. Nor have third-party plaintiffs

            ;(;ubmittcd any evjdcncc of a written imk:mnity agreement be11,vccn the partje~.

                     As there is no dispute that Nead was not retained pursuant to any formal \vritten contract,

            all third-pany indemnification or contribution claims aguinsl Nead are prohihitcd by WCL § 1 l,

            except \Vhcrc the employee sustained a i.grnve injury."

                                        u. Mate1ial Questions of Fact Remain Regarding Whether P!ainli ff
                                           Sustui ned a Gm\\; lnjurv Pursuant rn WCL § l l

                     It is well established that, with respect to WCL § 1 I, it is "the burden of the party seeking

            summ...1.ry judgment to show, by competenL adrnjssiblc evidence, that the plaintiffs. inj urics \Vere

            not •grave'" (Altonen ii Toyota idotor Credit Corp., 32 AD.1<l 342. 343 [l st Dept 2006t).

             1 S2038f2 Q15 COTRO NEC, COSMO Y s.. OU TFRO NT MEDIA SIGN ERECT ORS                         Page G of "II
             Motion No. 009

                                                             6 of 9
[* 6]
                                                                                                          INDEX NO. 162038/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

            Herc, Outfron l, Plaintiff and Third Thi rd~ Party P1ai n tiffs arg uc that N ea<l failed to dem onst ra tc its

            entitlement Lo judgment as a matter of law as there is a triable issue of fact \vhether Plaintiffs

            claimed traumatic brain injury constituks a grave injury under WCL § 11. WCL § 11 states that

            grave injury shall meun only one or more or the following::

                             ID lcath, permanenl and total loss of use or amputation or an ann.
                             leg~ hand or foot, loss of muhiple fingers. loss of muhiple toes.
                             paraplegia or quad rip kgia, total and perrnant:!nt blindness, total and
                             pem1am::nt deafness, Joss of nose. loss of ear, permanent and severe
                             facial Ji:'iCigurcmcnt, loss of an index finger or an acquired injury
                             to the brain nlused by a.n external ph)'sica) force resuJting in
                             permanent totaJ disahiJity fcmphasi~ a<ldcd_l.

                    The Court of Appeals ha:,; held that 'Toe Le~l \VC adopt for permanent total disability under

            section 11 is one   or unemployability in any c.:apucity (Rubeis v Aqua Club Inc., 3 NY:ld 408. 417
            [2004]) [emphasis in odgimd].

                    In suppon of its position that Plaintiff did not suffer a grave injury a-. a result of the

            Accident, !\'cad submial'.<l Plaintiff's workern' compensation record~ which sho,v Lhai Plaintiffs

            first post-acl'.idcnt MRI of the bruin, taken on June 27, 2014 (over a year after the accident), wa~

            normal (NYSCEF Doc. 463 ). A subsequent T\-HU of Plainti rr s hrain taken on August 21, 2015

            stales that the results of Plainti rr s MRI were -~normal'' (NYSCEF Doc. 464). f urthcr, Keurological

            exams perfomJed hy Dr. Amit Klrnneja on November 24, 2016, and Jamiary 27, 2016 showed

            Plaintiffs mental status intact (NYSCEF Doc. 463 al p, I 2t his motor syst~ms normal (Id. al p.

            13), and ambulal1on with a normal gait (Id). Dr. Khaneja state:'i in his report that it is his

            professional opinion that "Mr. Cotroneo is capable of working with restrictions to be placed on no

            lifting over l 5 pounds"' (Id. at p. 14). Additionally. I\ cad submille<l the Supplemental Report of

            ncmopsychologist David M. Erlanger, Ph.D., 1\BPP. which stated that "there was no evidence that

            the reported [February 17, 2023] incident had affected Mr. Cotroneo's abihty to perforn1 work

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

[* 7]                                                         7 of 9
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 162038/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

           tasks on a full-time basis" (NYSCEF Doc. 459 at p. 20). l\cad also provided u report of

            Rehabititation Specialist. Jost:ph Pessalano, who conducted a vocational assessment of Plaintiff

           on April 20, 2021, and identified essential job functions for several positions appropriate for

           Plaintiff in the field of electronic:-; engineering with the average salary ranging from $37,860 to

           $78,730 (NYSCEF Doc. 460).

                   However, the report of Dr. Richard S'.:huster ()iYSCEF Doc. 41 St a vocationaJ

           psychologist who evaluated Plaintiff on July 9, 20 l 9 com:luded that "f a]t this point continued

           chronic unemployment can be expected. The combination of IPlaintiffs] ph:ysicaJ limitations,

           elderly work status. psychological ramifications. ncurohchavimal/"executivc·• dysfunction, etc.

           combine to foster such a sjgnificant imp~Jiment that even functioning in daily life remains

           negatively impacted" (1\YSCFF Doc. 478 at p. 33-34). Furthn, the Affidavit of neurologist Ur.

           Allen Pcrd, who has treated Plaintiff since June 24, 2014, slates that Plaintiff is "sigriificantly

           di sub led at present and cannot return to work in any capacity, particular]y because of his traumatic

           brain injury, anxiety, depression and memory lo.:;;(;," and that Plaintiffs symptoms ··were cau'ied

           by the work-related accident and injuries he suffered" (NYSCFF Doc. 478 at pp. 33-34).

                   In light of the conflicting testimony in lhe record, the Court finds th.at questions of material

            fact remain regarding whether Plaintiff suffered a grave injury as defined hy WCI. §11. As such,

           ~ead's motion for summary judgment is denied.

                   Accordingly, it is hereby,

                   ORDERED thal Third-Party Dcfcndants/Scnm<l Third-Pany Defendants/ll1ird Third-

           Party Defendants l\cad Electric, Inc. and Nead Electric, Inc. 's motion for summary _judgment is

           denied; and it is further

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

[* 8]                                                      8 of 9
                                                                                                             INDEX NO. 162038/2015
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 492                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/13/2024

                     OR DEF · D that lJcfcndantfThfrd-Party Plaintiff Cro               Managernenl Corp. Third-Party

             ,omplaint is dismissed as moot; and it is further

                     ORD ,RED that on or before Apri l 16, 2024, the remaining parti1..;s are directed to submit

           a proposed 'taru Conference Order to the Court ia e-mail to , FC-Part33-CJcrktaln:ycourt. .gov.

           If the parties are nab le to agrt":e to a proposed tams Confer nee Order, the parties are dire tcd to

           appear for an in-person starus o nl -rence v,rith lhe Court in Room 442; 60 Cenlre Street, on April

            17. 2024 at 9:30 a.m.: and it is further

                     ORDERED tha t within ten (10) day. of entry, coun el for Movant sha1l serve a copy of

           this Decision and Order with notice of enlry upon all parties to thi. at:tion; and it is further

                     ORDERED thaL the C lerk of the Court is directed lo enter judgment accordingly.

                     Th is con ·ti tutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                      311312024
                        DATE                                                          HON .    ARY V. ROSADO, J .S.C.

                                          ~
             CHECK ONE:                       CASE DISPOS 0                      NON-Fl NAL 0IS POSITION

                                              GRANTED            0     CE IED    GRAN TED IN PART          □ 0 11-IER
            APPLICATION;                      SETTLE 0:R0 R                      SUBMIT ORO R

             CH ECK IF APPROPR:IA Jle::       INCLUDES TR.ANS Fl:;R/Rl:ASSI GN   FI0UCIARV APPOINTMENT     □ REFEIRE:NCE

            1s:zo:,a12015 COTRONEO, COSMO vs. OUTFRONT MIEDIA SIGN ER.ECTOR$                                 P,19 e 9 of 9
            Motion N10. 009

[* 9]                                                                9 of 9