Court Opinion

ID: 9962513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:09:32.029494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.619337
License: Public Domain

Santiago v Genting N.Y. LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31365(U)
                     April 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157665/2019
                Judge: Margaret A. Chan
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 157665/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                               SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                         NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:         HON. MARGARET A. CHAN                                 PART                               49M
                                                                         Justice
            -------------------X                                                   INDEX NO.           157665/2019
               EDWIN SANTIAGO,
                                               Plaintiff,                          MOTION DATE          10/10/2023

                                                                                   MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _0_0...:...5_ _
                                         -v-
               GENTING NEW YORK LLC i/s/h/a RESORTS WORLD
               CASINO, PLAZA CONSTRUCTION LLC, and UNITED
                                                                                     DECISION + ORDER ON
               ARCHITECTURAL METALS, INC.,
                                                                                            MOTION
                                               Defendants.
            -------------------X

               GENTING NEW YORK LLC i/s/h/a RESORTS WORLD                                     Third-Party
               CASINO and PLAZA CONSTRUCTION LLC                                        Index No. 595448/2020

                                               Third Party Plaintiffs,

                                         -against-

               UNITED ARCHITECTURAL METALS, INC.

                                               Third Party Defendant.
               -------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 211, 212, 213, 214,
            218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232
            were read on this motion to/for                              REARGUMENT/RECONSI DERATION

                  In this labor law personal injury action, third-party defendant United
           Architectural Metals, Inc. (UAM) moves pursuant to CPLR 2221 to reargue its
           motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it, which was denied by
           this court in Decision and Order dated September 27, 2023 (NYSCEF # 205 - Prior
           Decision). Plaintiff Edwin Santiago and defendants/third ·party plaintiffs Genting
           New York LLC i/s/h/a Resorts World Casino (Genting) and Plaza Construction LLC
           (Plaza) oppose. For the reasons below, this motion (MS 005) is denied in part and
           granted in part.
                                                       BACKGROUND 1
                  The court assumes the parties' familiarity with the factual background of this
           case, which was detailed in the court's Prior Decision (NYSCEF # 205). In short,
           plaintiff alleges that he was injured on July 25, 2019, while working on the Resort

           1
               Unless otherwise specified, the following facts are drawn from the Prior Decision (NYSCEF # 205).
               157665/2019 SANTIAGO, EDWIN vs. GENTING NEW YORK LLC                                     Page 1 of 7
               Motion No. 005

                                                             1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157665/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            World Casino Expansion project located at 110·00 Rockaway Boulevard, Jamaica,
            New York. Genting was the project owner, and Plaza was the construction manager.
            Plaza subcontracted non·party Massey's Plate Glass & Aluminum, Inc. (Massey) to
            install glass window panels to the exterior of certain buildings being constructed at
            the site. Massey purchased these glass panels from DAM (NYSCEF # 37 at 9·13-
            Purchase Order) and engaged plaintiffs employer, non·party Utopia Construction of
            NY Corp., to perform the actual installation.
                   Under Massey's Purchase Order with DAM, DAM was obligated to fabricate
            the glass panels and pack them into certain wood crates that DAM built in·house,
            before delivering the crated panels to the project site (id). Specifically, DAM was
            also to ensure that "each crate ... ha[s] protection so material does not get damaged
            during unloading & hoisting into building'' (id at 12). The Purchase Order also
            required UAM to indemnify "Massey, its affiliates, [and] customers" for losses and
            claims that arise out of injuries "in any way arising out of or caused by the work or
            services performed, or articles furnished by [DAM]" (id at 10, § 5).
                   Two months before plaintiffs workplace accident, workers at the site noticed
            issues with the placement and securing of the panels inside the crates. They
            notified Massey, who in turn put UAM on notice that the panels were loose and
            moving inside the crates. On the day of the accident, plaintiff was using dollies to
            move a crate of panels to an installation point. Plaintiff was injured when he and
            his coworkers were about to wheel the crate over a ramp; plaintiff grabbed the wood
            crate from the inside of the crate when a panel in the crate slid towards plaintiff,
            hitting the back of plaintiffs right hand and breaking the crate. Photos of the
            accident scene showed that one side of the crate was busted open by the panels, and
            a piece of wood at the top of crate was hanging mid·air. All eyewitnesses, including
            plaintiff, testified consistently with the above description of the incident. The day
            after the accident, UAM sent Keith Ely to the site to inspect the crates and he
            observed that the crate at issue had "come apart" (NYSCEF # 68- Ely tr at 76=6·13,
            77:13-15)_
                   Of relevance here, plaintiff has a claim for negligence against UAM
            (NYSCEF # 189 -Am.ended Compl), and Plaza and Genting have third·party claims
            for common law contribution, indemnification, and contractual indemnification
            against UAM (NYSCEF # 171 -Amended Third Party Compl). Previously, in MS
            002, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the negligence claim. In MS 003,
            Plaza and Genting only moved to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and did not
            move on their third·party claims against UAM. In MS 004, DAM moved for
            summary judgment dismissing all claims against it, and Plaza and Genting cross
            moved for summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim.
                  The Prior Decision, which covered MS 002, 003, and 004, (i) denied the
            branch of plaintiffs summary judgment motion on the negligence claim, (ii) denied
            UAM's summary judgment motion in its entirety, and (iii) granted Plaza and
            Genting's cross motion for summary judgment on the contractual indemnification
            claim (NYSCEF # 205).
             157665/2019 SANTIAGO, EDWIN vs. GENTING NEW YORK LLC                    Page 2 of7
             Motion No. 005

[* 2]                                                    2 of 7
                                                                                               INDEX NO. 157665/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                   Now, in MS 005, UAM seeks leave to reargue its previous summary judgment
            motion (MS 004), asserting that the Prior Decision overlooked its reply affirmation
            on the contractual indemnification claim (NYSCEF # 199; NYSCEF # 212 - MS 005
            MOL, 11 4, 5). 2 UAM further alleges that this court misconstrued plaintiffs
            testimony relating to the common law claims (NYSCEF # 212, 11 14·17). Upon
            reargument, UAM moves for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it
            (id at 7). Both plaintiff and Plaza and Genting oppose (NYSCEF #s 219, 221).
                                                        DISCUSSION
                   "A motion for leave to reargue pursuant to CPLR 2221 is addressed to the
            sound discretion of the court and may be granted only upon a showing that the
            court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or the law or for some reason
            mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision" ( William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v Kassis,
            182 AD2d 22, 27 [1st Dept 1992] [quotation marks omitted]). Such a motion "is
            designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or
            misapprehended the relevant facts or misapplied any controlling principle of law"
            (Pro Brokerage, Inc. v Home Ins. Co., 99 AD2d 971, 972 [1st Dept 1984] [internal
            quotation marks and citation omitted]). On a motion to reargue, the movant may
            not introduce facts or legal arguments that are not submitted on the original motion
            (see Jones v City ofNew York, 146 AD3d 690, 691 [1st Dept 2017] [refused to
            consider new affidavits not offered before]; see DeSoignies v Cornasesk House
            Tenants' Corp., 21 AD3d 715, 718 [1st Dept 2005] [the movant cannot argue a new
            theory of liability on a motion to reargue]).
                   On a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most
            favorable to the non·moving party (Schmidt v One New York Plaza Co. LLC, 153
            AD3d 427,428 [2017]). A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima
            facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (Pullman v
            Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060, 1062 [2016]). In the presence of a genuine issue of
            material fact, a motion for summary judgment must be denied (see Rotuba
            Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 [1978]; Grossman v Amalgamated Haus.
            Corp., 298 AD2d 224, 226 [1st Dept 2002]).
            Plaintiffand Plaza and Gen ting's Common Law Claims Against UAM
                   The claims at issue here are plaintiffs claim for negligence and Plaza and
            Genting's claims for common law contribution and indemnification against UAM. In
            its previous summary judgment motion, UAM posited that it did not owe plaintiff
            any duty and therefore was not liable for common law claims that predicated on a
            finding of negligence (NYSCEF # 108, 11 23·26, 44).
                  The Prior Decision denied UAM's motion for summary judgment dismissing
            these common law claims, finding questions of fact exist regarding whether UAM
            2
             In MS 004, UAM filed two separate reply affirmations (NYSCEF #s 198,199). The first reply
            affirmation addressed plaintiffs opposition in MS 004 concerning the common law negligence claim
            (NYSCEF # 198), and the second reply affirmation was made in response to Plaza and Genting's
            opposition in MS 004 on the contractual indemnification claim (NYSCEF # 199).
                157665/2019 SANTIAGO, EDWIN vs. GENTING NEW YORK LLC                            Page 3 of 7
                Motion No. 005

[* 3]                                                       3 of 7
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157665/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

           owed a duty to plaintiff (NYSCEF # 205 at 10-11). The Prior Decision explained that
           under the Espinal doctrine, UAM would have a duty to plaintiff if UAM "negligently
           creat[ed] or exacerbat[ed] a dangerous condition" (id. at 10; see Espinal v Melville
           Snow Contractors, Inc., 98 NY2d 136, 138 [2002]). Based on plaintiffs testimony
           describing the accident, the Prior Decision noted that "when the crate at issue was
           being moved, the panels inside shifted out and busted it open" (NYSCEF # 205 at
           10). Thus, the Prior Decision concluded the record raises a triable issue of fact that
           "UAM negligently created a dangerous condition by crat[ing] the panels loosely
           inside easily·broken crates" (id at 11).
                  Now, in seeking leave to reargue the common law claims, UAM does not point
           to any facts that were overlooked by the court but claims that the court
           misconstrued plaintiffs testimony cited in the Prior Decision (NYSCEF # 212, ,r,r
           14·17). The court is not persuaded. UAM itself admitted that plaintiffs testimony
           "describe[d] the crate breaking" when being hit by the panels (id ,r 17). UAM also
           conceded that "the crate may have become damaged in the course of the accident"
           (NYSCEF # 212, ,r 20). The record contains abundant evidence that the panels
           moved inside and busted open the crate when the injury occurred (NYSCEF # 61;
           NYSCEF # 63 at 130:25-131:16; NYSCEF # 68 at 76:6-13, 77:13·15). Perplexingly,
           however, UAM seeks reargument asserting that the court misunderstood the facts
           when concluding that the crate at issue might be defective (id ,r 14). As such, UAM
           has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to re argument on this ground. 3
                 Accordingly, UAM's request for leave to reargue the common law claims
           against it is denied.
           Plaza and Gentings Contractual Indemnification Claim Against UAM
                 As to Plaza and Genting's contractual indemnification claim against UAM,
           the Prior Decision granted summary judgment to Plaza and Genting because they
           were Massey's customers, whom UAM agreed to indemnify under its Purchase
           Order with Massey (NYSCEF# 205 at 11-12). UAM's competing summary judgment
           motion on this claim (MS 004) was therefore denied (id).
                  Nevertheless, the Prior Decision overlooked UAM's reply affirmation
           submitted in connection with this claim (NYSCEF # 199) and deemed that UAM did
           not respond on this issue (NYSCEF # 205 at 11). As such, UAM's current motion to
           reargue (MS 005) is granted on the contractual indemnification claim (see William
           P. Pahl Equip. Corp., 182 AD2d at 27).
                 Upon reargument, UAM seeks an order that denies summary judgment to
           Plaza and Genting on the contractual indemnification claim and instead grants
           summary judgment to UAM, dismissing this contractual indemnification claim

           3 To be clear, the Prior Decision considered and rejected UAM's meritless position that the subject
           crate was not defective simply because it did not break before/until the accident occurred (NYSCEF #
           108, ,i,r 4, 27·34). Taken at its face value, this argument posits that the panels did not come loose
           until they did, and the crate did not break apart until the panels broke it. If anything, this undercuts
           rather than advances UAM's position that the particular crate was not defective as a matter of law.
            15766512019 SANTIAGO, EDWIN vs. GENTING NEW YORK LLC                                    Page4of7
            Motion No. 005

[* 4]                                                      4 of 7
                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157665/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

           (NYSCEF # 212 at 7). UAM first contends that Plaza and Genting's cross motion in
           MS 004 is a "successive motion □ for summary judgment" that should not have been
           heard (NYSCEF # 212, 1 7). In opposition, Plaza and Genting clarify that although
           they filed a motion for summary judgment in the main action (MS 003) before
           making the cross motion in the third·party action, the scope of that prior motion is
           limited to plaintiffs claims, to the exclusion of any third-party claims against UAM.
           As such, the cross motion is their first motion for summary judgment on the
           contractual indemnification claim (id).
                  New York courts tend not to entertain successive motions for summary
           judgment (see Fleming and Assoc., CPA, P. C. v Murray & Josephson, CPAs, LLC,
           127 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2015]). The policy of this rule is to discourage a party from
           repeatedly seeking the same relief by making "successive fragmentary attacks upon
           a cause ofactio.ri' (id; Amill v Lawrence Ruben Co., Inc., 117 AD3d 433, 434 [1st
           Dept 2014] [emphasis added]). Here, Plaza and Genting's cross motion in MS 004 is
           not a successive summary judgment motion because it rests on a cause of action
           under which no prior relief has been sought by Plaza and Genting.
                  Next, UAM argues that Plaza and Genting's cross motion is untimely and
           therefore procedurally defective (NYSCEF # 212, 1 7). Plaza and Genting
           counterargue that the late cross motion raised issues nearly identical to those
           raised in UAM's timely filed MS 004 and therefore was properly before the court
           (NYSCEF # 219 at 13). The court agrees.
                  Generally, courts decline to consider untimely summary judgment motions
           unless good cause for delay is shown (see Brill v City ofNew York, 2 NY3d 648, 653
           [2004]). As an exception, however, an untimely cross motion may be considered on
           its merits without a showing of good cause, if it addresses "nearly identical" issues
           in a timely filed summary judgment motion (see Connor v AMA Consulting
           Engineers PC, 213 AD3d 483, 484 [1st Dept 2023], iv to appeal dismissed in part,
           denied in part, 40 NY3d 1088 [2024]; see also Kershaw v Hosp. for Special Surgery,
           114 AD3d 75, 87 [1st Dept 2013]). This exception applies to the case at bar because
           Plaza and Genting's cross motion was about their contractual indemnification claim
           against UAM, which was identical to one of the issues raised in UAM's timely-made
           motion for summary judgment (NYSCEF # 108, 1112·19). As such, Plaza and
           Genting's cross motion in MS 004 was not procedurally deficient.
                  Turning to the merits of the contractual indemnification claim, UAM's
           Purchase Order with Massey required that UAM indemnify "[Massey], its affiliates,
           customers, employees" for claims relating to injuries arising out of "the work or
           service performed, or articles furnished by [UAM]" (NYSCEF # 37 at 10, § 5
           [emphasis added]). Now UAM contends that this Purchase Order "contemplates
           only the indemnity of Masseys" because it "does not mention either Plaza or
           Genting'' or define the term "customers" (NYSCEF # 212, 11 9, 11; NYSCEF # 232,
           11 7, 10). UAM relies on Tanking v Port Auth. ofNew York and New Jersey(3
           NY3d 486, 490 [2004]) to argue that the contractual indemnity clause in the

            157665/2019 SANTIAGO, EDWIN vs. GENTING NEW YORK LLC                    Page 5of 7
            Motion No. 005

[* 5]                                                    5 of 7
                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157665/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            Purchase Order should be construed narrowly to the exclusion of Genting or Plaza
            (NYSCEF # 212, ,r,r 10, 11, 13).
                   UAM's reliance in Tonkingis misplaced. Tonkingis one of the Court of
            Appeals' decisions that follow the governing rule for interpreting contractual
            indemnity clause as set forth in Hooper Assoc., Ltd v AGS Computers, Inc. (74
            NY2d 487, 491 [1989]). In Hopper, the Court of Appeals held that "[w]hen a party is
            under no legal duty to indemnify, a contract assuming that obligation must be
            strictly construed to avoid reading into it a duty which the parties did not intend to
            be assumed" (id). That said, a party's promise to indemnify can be found if "it can
            be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the
            surrounding facts and circumstances" (id at 491 ·492). A contractual indemnity
            clause, even when strictly read, does not leave out a promise to indemnify that is
            clearly implied from the entire contract (id).
                   Here, reading UAM's Purchase Order with Massey as a whole, it clearly
            implied that the parties intended UAM to indemnify Plaza and Genting. To begin,
            the court rejects UAM's assertion that the Purchase Order only contemplated the
            indemnification of Massey and no other entities. It is settled rule that "a contract is
            to be construed so as to give effect to each and every part" and not to render part of
            its language "mere surplusage" (FCI Group, Inc. v City ofNew York, 54 AD3d 171,
            176 [1st Dept 2008] [rejecting a contract interpretation that would cause part of the
            contract language superfluous]; see also Angelo Gordon Real Estate Inc. v Benlab
            Realty, LLC, 216 AD3d 420, 421 [1st Dept 2023]). Here, UAM's Purchase Order
            obligated it to indemnify "[Massey], its affiliates, customers, employees, successors
            and assigns" (NYSCEF # 37 at 10, § 5). If the only indemnitee under this clause is
            Massey, the foregoing sentence would be rendered largely superfluous.
                   Further, Plaza engaged Massey for the installation of the curtain wall and
            therefore is a customer of Massey's under the trade subcontract executed by Plaza
            and Massey (NYSCEF # 214). As to Genting (d/b/a Resorts World Casino), UAM
            avers that it was not Massey's customer because Genting did not directly contract
            with Massey (NYSCEF # 212, ,r 12) and Genting was "not mentioned in the
            [Purchase Order] at all" (NYSCEF # 232, ,r 9). UAM is mistaken. Genting's name-
            "Resort World" was mentioned five times in the Purchase Order (NYSCEF # 37 at 9,
            12, 13). The Purchase Order explicitly identified "Resort World Casino Expansion"
            as the project name and "Resort World Jobsite" at 110·00 Rockaway Boulevard,
            Jamaica, New York as the delivery address for UAM to use for shipping the crated
            panels (id). It is apparent from the Purchase Order that UAM and Massey executed
            it with the understanding that UAM's goods and services were ordered for Genting's
            project: Resort World Casino Expansion (id).
                   Genting's relationship with Massey is also reflected in Massey's contract with
            Plaza, which was made with Genting's approval of (NYSCEF # 214 at 1, 3) and
            which required Massey to complete its work "under the direction and supervision of
            and to the entire satisfaction of Plaza ... and [Genting]" (id at 5, § 2.2). The only
            three parties listed on the cover page of this contract were Genting, Plaza, and
             157665/2019 SANTIAGO, EDWIN vs. GENTING NEW YORK LLC                      Page 6 of7
             Motion No. 005

[* 6]                                                    6 of 7
                                                                                              INDEX NO. 157665/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 233                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            Massey (id at 1). Because Massey was obligated under this contract to satisfy
            Genting's needs and requirements, Genting also constituted a customer of Massey's.
                  Therefore, following the principles in Hopper and Tonking, the Purchase
            Order and the facts and circumstances surrounding it clearly imply that the
            intended customers of Massey's for purpose of the indemnification clause in the
            Purchase Order were Genting and Plaza. The Prior Decision properly granted Plaza
            and Genting's cross motion for summary judgment on the contractual
            indemnification claim (see Torres v Morse Diesel Intern., Inc., 14 AD3d 401,403
            [1st Dept 2005] [granting summary judgment on a contractual indemnification
            claim where the intention to indemnify was clearly implied from the entire
            contract]). Accordingly, upon reargument, UAM's summary judgment dismissing
            Genting and Plaza's contractual indemnification claim is denied.
                                                        CONCLUSION
                    In view of the above, it is hereby
                  ORDERED that third-party defendant United Architectural Metals, Inc.
            (UAM)'s motion for reargument (MS 005) is granted only on the contractual
            indemnification claim; and upon reargument, UAM's motion for summary judgment
            dismissing third-party plaintiffs Genting New York LLC i/s/h/a Resorts World
            Casino and Plaza Construction LLC's contractual indemnification claim against
            UAM is denied.

                    04/19/2024

                      DATE                                                  MARGARET A. CHAN, J.S.C.

             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

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

             157665/2019 SANTIAGO, EDWIN vs. GENTING NEW YORK LLC                              Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 005

[* 7]                                                     7 of 7