Court Opinion

ID: 9916523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:10.272376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:38.082349
License: Public Domain

Keys v City of New York
               2023 NY Slip Op 34565(U)
                   December 27, 2023
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 156867/2018
                 Judge: Richard Latin
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. 156867/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 390                                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. RICHARD LATIN                                              PART                              46M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          156867/2018
             KEVIN KEYS,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         09/22/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         008
                                                 -v-
             THE CITY OF NEW YORK, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA-
             GREATER NEW YORK, INC.,DEPARTMENT OF
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             HOMELESS SERVICES, RICHARDS PLUMBING AND
             HEATING CO.,                                                                                MOTION

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

             RICHARDS PLUMBING AND HEATING CO.                                                              Third-Party
                                                                                                      Index No. 595045/2019
                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             RVS CONSTRUCTION CORP

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

             THE CITY OF NEW YORK                                                                       Second Third-Party
                                                                                                      Index No. 595770/2021
                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             RVS CONSTRUCTION CORP

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 336, 337, 338, 339,
            340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 360, 363, 364, 365,
            366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381, 382
            were read on this motion to/for                                                  JUDGMENT – SUMMARY                    .

             156867/2018 KEYS, KEVIN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                            Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 008

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 156867/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 390                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                   Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendants/third-party plaintiff Richards

            Plumbing and Heating Co. (“Richards”) and defendant/second third-party plaintiff City of New

            York’s motion for summary judgment is determined as follows:

                   Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries stemming from an incident where

            he fell into an unprotected, uncovered, and unsecured portion of a trench where he was working

            as a laborer on a construction site located at 22 E. 119th Street, New York, New York on January

            16, 2018. With this motion Richards and the City of New York seek summary judgment on their

            contractual indemnification claims against third-party defendant RVS Construction Corp.

            (“RVS”).

                       The proponent of a summary judgment motion has the burden of submitting

              evidence in admissible form demonstrating the absence of any triable issues of fact and

              establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Giuffrida v Citibank Corp.,

              100 NY2d 72 [2003]; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Only

              when the movant satisfies its prima facie burden will the burden shift to the opponent “to

              lay bare his or her proof and demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact” (

              Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324; see also Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557

              [1980]).

                   “A party is entitled to full contractual indemnification provided that the ‘intention to

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

            surrounding facts and circumstances’” (Drzewinski v Atlantic Scaffold & Ladder Co., 70 NY2d

            774, 777 [1987], quoting Margolin v New York Life Ins. Co., 32 NY2d 149, 153 [1973]; see

            also Tonking v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 3 NY3d 486, 490 [2004]). A construction contract is

            unenforceable and void against public policy where it seeks to indemnify a promisee against

             156867/2018 KEYS, KEVIN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                      Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 008

                                                            2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156867/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 390                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

            liability resulting from the promisee’s own negligence (General Obligations Law § 5-322.1[1]).

            However, an indemnification provision that permits indemnification “to the fullest extent

            permitted by law” contains savings language that would allow a construction manager to receive

            partial and proportionate indemnification for its contractors’ negligence, even where the

            construction manager may have also been negligent (see Brooks v Judlau Contracting, Inc., 11

            NY3d 204 [2008]; Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 89 NY2d 786 [1997];

            Guzman v 170 West End Ave. Associates, 115 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2014]).

                   The subject contract and indemnity agreement contain two separate indemnification

            clauses which each run in favor of the movants and state as follows:

                           To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Subcontractor shall
                           indemnify and hold harmless the Owner, Contractor . . . from and
                           against claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not
                           limited to attorney’s fees, arising out of or resulting from
                           performance of the Subcontractor’s Work under this Subcontract,
                           provided that any such claim, damage, loss or expense is attributable
                           to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or injury to or
                           destruction of tangible property (other than the Work itself), but
                           only to the extent caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the
                           Subcontractor, the Subconctractor’s Sub-subcontractors anyone
                           directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts
                           they may be liable, regardless of whether or not such claim, damage,
                           loss or expense is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder.
                           Such obligation shall not be construed to negate, abridge, or
                           otherwise reduce other rights obligations of indemnity; which would
                           otherwise exist as to a party or person described in this Section 4.6.
                           •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
                           To the fullest extent permitted by law, Subcontractor shall defend,
                           indemnify, and hold harmless Richards Plumbing & Heating Co.,
                           Inc, RPH Properties LLC, Project Owner, Contractor, Architect and
                           consults, agents and employees of any of them individually or
                           collectively from and against all claims, damages, liabilities, losses
                           and expenses. This includes but not limited to attorneys’ fees arising
                           out of or in any way connected with the performance or lack of
                           performance of the work under the agreement and/or any change
                           orders or additions to the work included in the agreement, provided
                           that any such claim, damage, liability, loss or expense is attributable

             156867/2018 KEYS, KEVIN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                            Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 008

                                                            3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 156867/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 390                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                           to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death or physical injury to
                           tangible property including loss of use of that property, or loss of
                           use of tangible property that is not physically injured, and caused in
                           whole or in party by any actual or alleged:

                           Act or omission of the Subcontractor or anyone directly or indirectly
                           retained or engaged by it or anyone for whose acts it may be liable;
                           or Violation of any statutory duty, regulation, ordinance, rule or
                           obligation by an Indemnitee provided that all the violation arises out
                           of is in any way connected with the Subcontractor’s performance or
                           lack of performance of the work under the agreement.

                     Here, it is clear that the parties intended for RVS to indemnify Richards and the City

              of New York. To the extent that an ambiguity exists between the two provisions, it will be

              construed in favor of the non-drafter, RVS (see Lai Ling Cheng v Modansky Leasing Co., 73

              NY2d 454 [1989]). Thus, RVS need only indemnify movants for its negligent acts or

              omissions.

                     In support of the motion, movants submit, inter alia, the expert affidavit of Robert J.

              Monaco, P.E., professional civil engineer. In forming his opinion, Monaco reviewed the

              deposition transcripts and discovery exchanged. Monaco ultimately opined with a reasonable

              degree of engineering certainty that the plaintiff was solely supervised, directed, and controlled

              at the worksite by his employer RVS, that RVS was responsible for site safety since they dug

              the trench, and that the accident was caused by plaintiff’s lack of supervision, direction, and

              proper control.

                   In opposition to the motion, RVS fails to attempt to rebut the expert affidavit or allege that

            any entity other than RVS controlled or supervise plaintiff or was responsible for ensuring that the

            trench was secured. Instead, RVS argues based on prior testimony that it was Richards who had

            inappropriately opened the trench in contravention of their agreement, as they had on four or five

            other known occasions. Thus, inasmuch as RVS raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Richards

             156867/2018 KEYS, KEVIN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                           Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 008

                                                            4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 156867/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 390                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

            was also negligent and a cause of the accident in possibly opening up the trench and failing to

            inform RVS who was responsible for making sure it was secure and safe for their workers, the

            movants are only entitled to partial contractual indemnification, potentially limited by any

            apportionment against them.

                    Accordingly, movants’ motion for summary judgment is granted solely to the extent that

            Richards and the City of New York are entitled to partial indemnification.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                    12/27/2023                                                           $SIG$
                      DATE                                                         RICHARD LATIN, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                   □
                                         GRANTED             DENIED   X   GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

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

             156867/2018 KEYS, KEVIN vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                           Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 008

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]