Court Opinion

ID: 9929959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 20:07:22.651589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:57:58.700117
License: Public Domain

West v 375 HH LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30345(U)
                    January 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157890/2019
                  Judge: Sabrina Kraus
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. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. SABRINA KRAUS                                                  PART                              57M
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X      INDEX NO.          157890/2019
             JAMES VALENTINE WEST,
                                                                                                     MOTION DATE         07/17/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 - V -

             375 HH LLC, NTT SERVICES, L.L.C., PRITCHARD
             INDUSTRIES, INC., HINES INTERESTS LIMITED                                                 DECISION + ORDER ON
             PARTNERSHIP,                                                                                    MOTION

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
            38, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60, 61, 62,63,64, 65,
            66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       SUMMARY JUDGMENT

                                                         BACKGROUND

                      Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for personal injuries alleged suffered

            when he slipped and fell in the lobby of 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York.

                      375 HH, LLC is the owner of 375 Hudson Street, and Hines Interests Limited Partnership

            ("Hines") is the managing agent. NIT Services is the contractor providing maintenance services

            at in the building.

                                                      PENDING MOTIONS

                      On August 17, 2023. Hines moved for summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint

            and cross claims against them, and for summary judgment on their cross-claims against co-

            defendants for contractual indemnification.

             157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                                          Page 1 of 10
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 10
[* 1]
                                                                                                             INDEX NO. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                       On the same date, NIT Services and Pritchard Industries, Inc. cross-moved for summary

           judgment and dismissal of plaintiffs complaint, as well as dismissal of all cross-claims against

            them, including claims for contractual indemnification.

                       On October 9, 2023, the motion and cross-motion were fully briefed and marked

            submitted.

                       The motions are granted to the extent set forth below.

                                                   ALLEGED FACTS

                       Plaintiff slipped and fell on April 30, 2019, at approximately 5:50 am. 1 At the time,

            Plaintiff was employed by Turner Construction as a Senior Safety Manager, with an office

            located on the 6th floor of the building.

                       NIT asserts that according to an official NOAA weather, it had rained during the early

            morning hours of and was drizzling at 5:50 am.

                       Plaintiff could not recall whether there was any precipitation or dampness outside the

            building on the sidewalks. Plaintiff walked into the building holding a closed umbrella which

            fell to the floor when he slipped.

                       Plaintiffs counsel asserts that it was not drizzling at the time, and that the court should

            not consider the weather report relied in by NIT because the weather report is for JFK airport

            and not comparable to the weather at the west side of Manhattan and the data is not interpreted

            by an expert. Plaintiff further argues that the report shows no precipitation at 5:50 am.

                       Plaintiff did not recall whether he took the train or his vehicle on the day of the accident,

            but either way, Plaintiff would have walked between a half block and a block to get to the

            building. Plaintiff met a co-worker, Michael O'Brien and entered the building through the main

            1
                Plaintiff asserts it was 5:30 am but the time on the video indicates it was 5:48 am.
                157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                           Page 2 of 10
                Motion No. 001

                                                                     2 of 10
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            entrance with O'Brien. The lobby was very clean. The video shows that runners/mats were laid

            out from the entrance all the way to the guard booth, and that Plaintiff stepped off the mat with

            his left foot and slipped and fell onto the marble floor.

                   Plaintiff testified that he does not know what caused him to fall. He speculated that it

            could have been from wax or dampness. Plaintiff testified that the floor was very slippery, but

            he didn't know why. Plaintiff testified that the floor looked remarkably clean and shiny, almost

            wet, like freshly waxed. The video, which does not show anything on the floor where Plaintiff

            fell. Plaintiff at no time noticed any wetness or moisture on his clothing after he fell.

                   NIT was the contractor providing cleaning and maintenance of the building. NIT was

            responsible for janitorial service for the lobby, including sweeping, mopping, spot mopping,

            placement of mats depending on the weather, placement of warning signs if floor wet from an

            unexpected condition, due to weather or after mopping. Plaintiff asserts that no signs were in

            place, warning that the floor was wet from cleaning. NIT asserts signs were in place that the

            floor could be wet because of the rain. The video shows signs in place, but what was written on

            the signs is not observable in the video.

                   Pritchard Industries fulfills NIT' s contractual obligations at the building. NIT

            employees swept and mopped the floor nightly. Mopping was done with a mop and bucket

            owned by Pritchard Industries.

                   If a wet condition occurred within an area, including the lobby, NIT would spot mop just

            to soak up a spill or accumulation of tracked in water. NIT had a day crew and a night crew. The

            night shift works from 5:00 pm until 12:30 am. After 12:30 am, NIT had only one employee on

            premises until 7am. NTT's night crew would mop the lobby between the hours of 9 pm and 12

            midnight. After midnight, there was no mopping done by NIT' s lone employee within the

             157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                     Page 3 of 10
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3   of 10
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            building. IfNTT was notified or observed any condition, wet or otherwise, NIT employees

            would address as needed including the spot mopping due to the tracking in of water from the

            outside.

                   On the day of the accident, prior to the accident, there had been no complaints of a wet or

            slippery condition on the lobby floor, NIT/PRITCHARD had not been asked to address or clean

            a wet or slippery condition on the lobby floor and NIT /PRITCHARD did not mop or wax the

            lobby floor on the morning of the accident nor were they called to do so.

                   Neither NIT nor PRITCHARD waxed the lobby floor at any time, nor does the contract

            for janitorial services include waxing the lobby floor. However, the owner does hire an outside

            company to do an annual "demonizing" treatment of the lobby floor.

                   The janitorial services contract contains an indemnification clause with the following

            language:

                   Contractor shall ... defend, indemnify and hold harmless ... Owner/Owner's Agent ... from
                   and against all liability, claims, damages, losses and expenses, including, without
                   limitation, reasonable legal fees and court costs, arising out of or alleged to arise out of
                   the negligence or willful misconduct of the Contractor, its agents and/or employees or a
                   breach of any of the terms of this Agreement by the Contractor, or from the negligent or
                   willful misconduct of any Subcontractor or its agents and/or employees or a breach by a
                   Subcontractor of any of the terms and conditions of its Subcontract ...

                                                  DISCUSSION

                   A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement

            to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence in admissible form to demonstrate

            the absence of material issues of fact (Ostrov v Rozbruch, 91 AD3d 147, 152 [1st Dept 2012],

            citing Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Santiago v Filstein, 35 AD3d 184,

            185-186 [1st Dept 2006], quoting Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853

            [1985]; CPLR 3212 [b]). A failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion,

             157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                    Page 4 of 10
             Motion No. 001

                                                         4   of 10
[* 4]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Smalls v AJI Indus., Inc., IO NY3d 733,

            735 [2008]).

                   Once a prima facie showing has been made, however, "the burden shifts to the

            nonmoving party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the

            existence of material issues of fact that require a trial for resolution" (Mazurek v Metropolitan

            Museum ofArt, 27 AD3d 227,228 [1st Dept 2006]; Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72,

            81 [2003]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557,562 [1980]; DeRosa v City ofNew

            York, 30 AD3d 323, 325 [1st Dept 2006]).

                   When deciding a summary judgment motion, the court's role is solely to determine if any

            triable issues exist, not to determine the merits of any such issues (see Sillman v Twentieth

            Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395,404 [1957]). The court must view the evidence in the

            light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and give the nonmoving party the benefit of all

            reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence (see Negri v Stop & Shop, Inc., 65

            NY2d 625, 626 [1985]). If there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable fact, the motion for

            summary judgment must be denied (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223,231 [1978];

            Grossman v Amalgamated Haus. Corp., 298 AD2d 224,226 [1st Dept 2002]; CPLR 3212[b]).

                   Defendants Are Entitled to Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs Complaint
                   Because Of Plaintiffs Inability to Identify a Condition That Caused Him To Fall

                   A plaintiff's inability to identify the defective condition that caused plaintiff's fall is fatal

            to the action because a finding that the defendant's negligence, if any, proximately caused

            plaintiff's injuries would be based on speculation, 0 'Connor v Metro Management Development,

            Inc., 130 AD3d 698 (2d Dept 2015); Smith v Maloney, 91 AD3d 1259 (3d Dept 2012); Califano

            v Maple Lanes, 91 AD3d 896 (2d Dept 2012); Siegel v New York, 86 AD3d 452 (1st Dept 2011);

            see Kane v Estia Greek Restaurant, Inc., 4 AD3d 189, 772 NYS2d 59 (1st Dept 2004).

             157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                       Page 5 of 10
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 10
[* 5]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                    The rationale for this rule is that if a plaintiff cannot identify the defective condition, it is

           just as likely that the fall could have been caused by some factor for which the defendant is not

            responsible, e.g., misstep by plaintiff or loss of balance, Califano v Lanes, supra; Gettinger v

           Amerada Hess Corp., 15 AD3d 654 638 (2d Dept 2005).

                    To satisfy the requirement, the plaintiff must identify the defect itself; mere identification

            of the approximate location of the accident is insufficient, see Siegel v New York, supra.

                    In this case, Plaintiff testified that he does not know why he slipped. He did not know if it

            was because the floor was wet or whether it had been recently cleaned. The only evidence

            Plaintiff provided was that he saw an item he believed was used to clean or buff floors in the

            comer of the lobby and he saw some uniformed personnel by the elevator.

                    The court finds that defendants have met their burden in establishing a prima facie

            entitlement to summary judgment and that plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact in

            response. Defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating that they neither created any

            hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of the existence of any alleged

            condition. The evidence of the regular routine for cleaning the floors before midnight, and that

            they had never waxed the floors was sufficient to shift the burden to plaintiff to demonstrate the

            existence of questions of fact. Raghu v New York City Housing Authority 72 AD3d 480, 481-82

            (!81 Dept, 2010).

                    On a case on point, Silber v Sullivan Properties 182 AD3d 512 (!81 Dept, 2020) the court

            held in pertinent part:

                    .... plaintiff alleged that the accident was due to defendant's negligence in causing and
                    allowing the building's entrance to be in an excessively wet, slippery, and hazardous
                    condition. Plaintiff testified that, he did not see what had caused him to slip, either before
                    or after he fell, but he believed the cause was the slippery marble door saddle at the top of
                    the stairs coupled with the wet surface from the rain.

             157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                        Page 6 of 10
             Motion No. 001

                                                           6   of 10
[* 6]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                   Defendant made a prima facie showing that there was no dangerous condition in
                   existence when plaintiff slipped and fell, and that it was therefore entitled to summary
                   judgment (Ceron v Yeshiva Univ. , 126 AD3d 630, 632 [1st Dept 2015]). Plaintiffs mere
                   speculation about causation is inadequate to sustain a cause of action (DaSilva v KS
                   Realty, L.P. , 138 AD3d 619, 620 [1st Dept 2016]). Even if plaintiff was unsure as to the
                   cause of the accident, the record shows that defendant lacked notice of the existence of
                   any dangerous condition (see Waiters v Northern Trust Co. ofN Y , 29 AD3d 325, 327
                   [1st Dept 2006]; see e.g. Perez v Abbey Assoc. Corp. , 103 AD3d 573 [1st Dept 2013]).

                   In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

            Silber v. Sullivan Properties, L.P. , 182 A.D.3d 512, 512-13 (2020).

                   In a case on point the Appellate Division, First Department held:

                   It is well settled that the fact that a floor is slippery by reason of its smoothness or polish,
                   in the absence of any proof of the negligent application of wax or polish, does not give
                   rise to a cause of action, or an inference of negligence ( Thomas v Caldor's, 224 AD2d
                   171; Pizzi v Bradlee's Div., 172 AD2d 504; Katz v New York Hosp., 170 AD2d 345). In
                   the matter before us, the conclusory, self-serving and highly speculative allegations
                   proffered by the plaintiff are insufficient to defeat Supreme Building's motion for
                   summary judgment.

            Pagan v. Loe. 23-25 Int'l Ladies Garment Workers Union , 234 A.D.2d 37, 38 (I8t Dept., 1996).

            See also Acunia ex rel. Salgado v. New York City Dep't ofEduc. , 68 A.D.3d 631, 632 (1 st Dept.,

            2009)(without specific allegations as to what precipitated plaintiff's fall, claim that negligence in

            maintaining the floor was the proximate cause of his injuries is speculation); Kudrov v. Laro

            Servs. Sys., Inc. , 41 A.D.3d 315 (I8t Dept., 2007) (plaintiff's testimony that she slipped and fell

            on a "shiny, slippery" floor did not give rise to inference of negligence and insufficient to defeat

            summary judgment); Villa v. Prop. Res. Corp. , 137 A.D.3d 454 (1 st Dept., 20I6)(defendants met

            burden of demonstrating that no waxy residue was on the floor through their testimony that the

           floor was never waxed, but mopped daily, plaintiffs testimony that she saw buffing machine used

             157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                       Page 7 of 10
             Motion No. 001

                                                            7   of 10
[* 7]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

            the day before she fell, and her claim that the wetness she felt on her pants and hands after she

           fell smelled like "wax or ammonia," insufficient to raise an issue offact).

                   Additionally, as to NIT and Pritchard, Plaintiff failed to respond to the argument that

            these defendants owed plaintiff no duty as they are independent contractors, plaintiff did not

            argue any exceptions apply under Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 136

            (2002) and plaintiff did not show these defendants created a dangerous condition.

                   Based on the foregoing the motions of all defendants for summary judgment and

            dismissal of plaintiffs complaint are granted.

                   Hines' Motion for Summary Judgment on its Contractual Indemnffication
                   Crossclaim Is Denied and The Cross-Motion to Dismiss The Crossclaim Is Granted

                   Contractual indemnification is generally decided as a matter oflaw. A party is entitled to

            full contractual indemnity provided 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., Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 216 (1987).

                   The subject indemnification clause contains the following language:

                   To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall protect, defend, indemnify and
                   hold harmless the Owner. .. from and against all liability, claims, damages, losses and
                   expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable legal fees and court costs, arising out
                   of or alleged to arise out of the negligence or willful misconduct of the Contractor, its
                   agents and/or employees or a breach of any of the terms of this Agreement ...

                   As noted above, the Court has found the evidence in the record in sufficient to establish

            any negligence on the part of either defendants. While the contract also contains the language

            that claims "alleged to arise out of negligence" would form a basis for indemnification,

            Plaintiffs allegations in this case were insufficient to allege that his claim arose out of NIT' s

            negligence, as his only real allegation was that the floor was shiny and slippery.

             157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                     Page 8 of 10
             Motion No. 001

                                                          8   of 10
[* 8]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                     The cases relied upon by Hines, Rogers v. Rockefeller Group Intl., Inc. 38 A.D.3d 747

            (2nd Dept. 2007); Mormille v. Jamestown Mgt. Corp., 21 Misc.3d 1129(A) (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty

            2008) are distinguishable from the case at bar, as in those cases a condition was actually

            identified and undisputed to be in existence, in one case there was active mopping going on, and

            in another there was rain, in this case, we essentially only have the allegation of a shiny slippery

            floor.

                     Based on the foregoing Hines' motion for summary judgment on the crossclaims is

            denied and NIT' s motion to dismiss the crossclaims is granted.

                     WHEREFORE it is hereby:

                     ORDERED that the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the

            complaint are granted and the complaint is dismissed with costs and disbursements to defendants

            as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission of an appropriate bill of costs; and it is further

                     ORDERED that all cross-claims are dismissed; and it is further

                     ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further

                     ORDERED that, within 20 days from entry of this order, defendants shall serve a copy of

            this order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60 Centre Street,

            Room 119); and it is further

                     ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk shall be made in accordance with the

            procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for

            Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-Filing" page on the court's website at the

            addresswww.nycourts.gov/supctmanh);]; and it is further

             157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                    Page 9 of 10
             Motion No. 001

                                                          9   of 10
[* 9]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157890/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 86                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/30/2024

                   ORDERED that any relief not expressly addressed has nonetheless been considered and

            is hereby denied.

                   This constitutes the decision and order of this court.

                    1/30/2024
                      DATE                                                          SABRINA KRAUS, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:            0    CASE DISPOSED               □ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
                                    □ GRANTED           □ DENIED    0       GRANTED IN PART        □ OTHER

             157890/2019 WEST, JAMES VALENTINE vs. NEW REMAINDERMAN 375 HUDSON                      Page 10 of 10
             Motion No. 001

                                                        10 of 10
[* 10]