Court Opinion

ID: 9954309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 21:11:05.266479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:01.265085
License: Public Domain

Hasan v Macerich Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30895(U)
                     March 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 151984/2020
                  Judge: Paul A. Goetz
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. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. PAUL A. GOETZ                                               PART                                47
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.           151984/2020
             MOHAMMED HASAN,
                                                                                                                       07/18/2023,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE          07/21/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,

                                                 - V -
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _0_02_00_3_ _

             THE MACERICH COMPANY, MACERICH QUEENS
             CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MACERICH
             PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, THE MACERICH
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             PARTNERSHIP, L.P., THE CADILLAC FAIRVIEW
             CORPORATION LIMITED, MAC. COSMETICS, INC.,
                                                                                                          MOTION

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

             THE MACERICH COMPANY, MACERICH QUEENS CENTER                                                      Third-Party
             LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MACERICH PROPERTY                                                      Index No. 595502/2020
             MANAGEMENT COMPANY, THE MACERICH
             PARTNERSHIP, L.P., THE CADILLAC FAIRVIEW
             CORPORATION LIMITED, MAC. COSMETICS, INC.

                                                          Plaintiffs,

                                                  -against-

             ABC IMAGING, INC.

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

             THE MACERICH COMPANY, MACERICH QUEENS CENTER                                                  Second Third-Party
             LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, MACERICH PROPERTY                                                      Index No. 595718/2021
             MANAGEMENT COMPANY, THE MACERICH
             PARTNERSHIP, L.P., THE CADILLAC FAIRVIEW
             CORPORATION LIMITED, MAC. COSMETICS, INC.

                                                          Plaintiffs,

                                                  -against-

             DEZAIO PRODUCTIONS, INC., A NEW JERSEY
             CORPORATION

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

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                                          Page 1 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                                           1 of 15
[* 1]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 65, 66, 67, 68, 69,
            70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81,82,83, 84, 85,86, 87, 88, 89, 90,91,92, 93, 94,95,96, 97,
            98, 99, 134, 160, 168, 174, 175, 176, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198,199,200,201,202,203,204,
            205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,245,246,248,249,254,257,258,
            259,260,261,262,263,264,269,270,271,272,273,274,275,276,277,278
            were read on this motion to/for                       SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 100, 101,102,103,
            104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,
            125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,161,169,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,
            188,189,190,191,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,
            236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,247,250,251,252,253,255,265,266
            were read on this motion to/for                               JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                   In this Labor Law personal injury action, plaintiff Mohammed Hasan moves for summary

           judgment as to liability on his Labor Law§ 240(1) claim as (MS #2) against defendants

            Macerich Property Management Company, LLC (i/s/h/a The Macerich Company, Macerich

            Property Management Company, The Macerich Partnership, L.P. and The Cadillac Fairview

            Corporation Limited); Queens Center SPE LLC (i/s/h/a Macerich Queens Center Limited

            Partnership); and M.A.C. Cosmetics Inc. (collectively "Defendants").

                   Third-party defendant, ABC Imaging Co. ("ABC") cross-moves (on MS #2) for summary

           judgment, dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law 240(1) claim. ABC also cross-moves for summary

           judgment seeking to dismiss the third-party claims for common law indemnity, contribution,

            contractual indemnity, and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance asserted against

            them by defendant/ third-party plaintiffs.

                   Defendants/ third-party plaintiffs separately move (MS #3) for summary judgment on

            their contractual indemnification, and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance claims

            asserted against ABC. They also move for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs common

            law negligence, and violations of Labor Law§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims as against them.

                                                      BACKGROUND

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                         Page 2 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                           2 of 15
[* 2]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                    Plaintiff was an employee of ABC, and was working on installing a temporary wall or

            barricade in from of the M.A.C. Cosmetics store at the Queens Center Mall on January 8, 2020 at

            approximately 1:30 AM (NYSCEF Doc 131 ,i 1). Defendant, Queens Center SPE LLC i/s/h/a

            Macerich Queens Center Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as Queens Center SPE),

            was the owner of the Queens Center Mall located in Elmhurst, Queens, New York (NYSCEF

            Doc No 66 ,i 4). Defendant, Macerich Property Management Company LLC (i/s/h/a The

            Macerich Company, Macerich Property Management Company, The Macerich Partnership, L.P.

            and The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited) was the property management company for the

            Queens Center Mall on January 8, 2020 (id. ,i 2). Defendant MAC Cosmetics was a lessee of

            defendant Queens Center SPE (id. at ,i 8) Defendant, The Macerich Partnership, L.P. entered into

            an agreement with Third-Party defendant ABC for the purpose of ABC installing barricades in

            front of tenants' stores in the Macerich Malls throughout the United States (NYSCEF Doc No

            175 i15).

                    The temporary wall ran in front of the MAC store (NYSCEF Doc No 66 ,i 13). At the top

            of the wall was a section known as a "Gerry board" and it was connected at the top of the

            temporary wall to the storefront (id.). To get his ladder in to position to install the Gerry boards

            plaintiff would wiggle his ladder to move it while he was standing on it, a practice he observed

            his supervisor Mohammed Juned also perform (id. at ,i 19). No other equipment was offered to

            plaintiff other than the ladder (id. at ,i 20). Plaintiff alleges that he was on the top rungs of a

            ladder, and while attempting to lift the Gerry board into place he fell from the ladder injuring

            himself (id. at ,i 17).

                    Plaintiff asserts claims under common law negligence, and Labor Law § 200, 240( 1), and

            241(6) (NYSCEF Doc No. 1). Defendants/ third-party plaintiffs assert claims against ABC for

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                         Page 3 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                            3   of 15
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            common law indemnity, contribution, contractual indemnity, and breach of contract for failure to

            procure insurance (NYSCEF Doc No 7).

                                                       DISCUSSION

            Labor Law§ 240(1)

                   Labor Law 240( 1) states that:

                           All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one
                           and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or
                           control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering,
                           painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish
                           or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of
                           such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers,
                           blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall
                           be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection
                           to a person so employed

            The statute was "designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay,

            ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm

            directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person" (Hill v Stahl,

            49 AD3d 438,442 [1st Dept 2008]). "To prevail on a Labor Law§ 240(1) claim, a plaintiff must

            demonstrate the existence of an elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute and that the

            failure to provide an appropriate safety device proximately caused injury" ( Gonzalez v DOLP

            205 Properties IL LLC, 206 AD3d 468,469 [1st Dept 2022]). [A]n accident alone does not

            establish a Labor Law § 240( 1) violation or causation [and] 'strict' or 'absolute' liability is

            necessarily contingent on a violation of section 240(1) (Blake v Neighborhood Haus. Services of

            New York City, Inc., I NY3d 280,289 [2003]). While, "comparative negligence is not a defense

            to absolute liability under the statute ... there can be no liability under section 240(1) when ...

            the worker's actions ... are the "sole proximate cause" of the accident" (id. at 289-290).

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                        Page 4 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                           4   of 15
[* 4]
                                                                                                             INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                      As a threshold matter, defendants first argue that Labor Law§ 240(1) does not apply to

            defendants Macerich Property Management Company, The Macerich Company, The Cadillac

            Fairview Corporation Limited, Queens Center SPE LLC (i/s/h/a Macerich Queens Center

            Limited Partnership), and M.A.C. Cosmetics because pursuant to the terms of the statue, Labor

            Law§ 240 only applies to "contractors and owners ... who contract for ... the work." (NYSCEF

            Doc 176 at 3). They further argue that only defendant, The Macerich Partnership, contracted for

            the work, but they too can not be found liable because they are not an owner of the property (id.)

                      However, the full section defendants rely on states "All contractors and owners and their

            agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or

            control the work" (NY LABOR§ 240[1]). The modifier defendants rely on only refers to owners

            of one or two-family dwellings. The purpose of this language is to exempt ownership liability to

            single and two-family homeowners, and not as defendants argue to exempt owners oflarge

            buildings who do not directly contract for the work (Urquiza v Park and 76th St., Inc., 172 AD3d

            518 [1st Dept 2019]). Indeed," Liability rests upon the fact of ownership and whether

            [defendants] had contracted for the work or benefitted from it are legally irrelevant" (Gordon v

            E. Ry. Supply, Inc., 82 NY2d 555, 560 [1993]).

                      Here, defendant Queens Center SPE LLC (i/s/h/a Macerich Queens Center Limited

            Partnership), is the owner of the property and defendant Macerich Property Management

            Company, LLC (i/s/h/a The Macerich Company, Macerich Property Management Company, The

            Macerich Partnership, L.P. and The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited 1) contracted with

            1
              Defendants simultaneously refer to each named defendants as separate identities but also refer to the group of
            defendants being Macerich Property Management Company, LLC. Since defendant admits that Macerich Property
            Management Company, LLC is the property management company which managed the Queens Center Mall and
            refers to all parties as if they were agents ofMacerich Property Management Company, LLC, the claims can not be
            dismissed against any of the named defendants.
                151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                             Page 5 of 15
                Motion No. 002 003

                                                               5 of 15
[* 5]
                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            defendant third-party defendant ABC to have the barricade installed. Thus, all the named

            defendants are subject to liability under Labor Law§ 240(1) as contractors, owners, and their

            agents.

                      Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240( 1) claim

            because the ladder provided to him was not tall enough for the work being performed, and that

            additional safety equipment should have been provided for the work. Plaintiff submits his own

            deposition testimony that while he was attempting to install a Gerry board at the top of the

            barricade, he had to lift the board above the ladder, and during that process he lost his balance

            and fell (NYSCEF Doc No 77 at 94:23 - 95:4). Plaintiff also submits an affidavit from a

            construction safety expert, Anthony Corrado (NYSCEF Doc No 92). Mr. Corrado opines that,

            "because the task necessitated [plaintiff] to reach forward and upward to connect the Gerry board

            to the storefront wall; and the type of work required him to use two hands to perform the task of

            attaching the Gerry board; and [plaintiff] could not access the highest point of work while using

            a IO-foot ladder2" that the ladder was not a safe device for the required work (NYSCEF Doc No

            92 at p 3).

                      In opposition defendants argue that plaintiff has not established that the ladder was

            defective. Further they argue, that even if the protection provided was not adequate, the claim

            should be dismissed because plaintiffs testimony establishes that he his actions were the sole

            proximate cause of the accident. Defendants note that in his deposition, plaintiff admits that in

            order to move the ladder closer to the wall, plaintiff would wiggle the ladder while standing on

            2
             While there is an issue of fact regarding the height of whether the ladder was 10 or 12 feet tall, Mr. Corrado also
            opined that "I add that a 12 foot ladder would likewise have been unsafe, as was the 10 foot one that was provided
            and my findings and opinions would be the same if the ladder had been 12-foot high, (NYSCEF Doc No 92 at p 4).
            Plaintiff has also submitted photographs which show that the ladder was clearly shorter than the height of the
            barricade (NYSCEF Doc No 258).
                151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                                 Page 6 of 15
                Motion No. 002 003

                                                                 6   of 15
[* 6]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            it, to inch it into a better position (NYSCEF Doc 77 at 101 :4 - 103: 15). Defendants argue that

            this use of the ladder was inappropriate and was the sole proximate cause of his fall.

                     Testimony that establishes that a ladder was "too short to enable [performance of the

            task] establishes prima facie that defendants failed to provide him with an adequate safety device

            under Labor Law§ 240 (1) and that their failure proximately caused his injuries" (Cuentas v

            Sephora USA, Inc., 102 AD3d 504 [1st Dept 2013]; see alsoAjche v Park Ave. Plaza Owner,

            LLC, 171 AD3d 411,413 [1st Dept 2019] [finding that testimony establishing that a worker was

            "standing on the second to the last rung [of a ladder], with his hands over his head toward the

            duct, which he could barely reach ... establishes prima facie that the ladder did not provide

            proper protection for plaintiff']). "Because the record is clear that the ladder did not prevent him

            from falling, his inability to identify the precise manner in which he fell is immaterial" (id.).

                     Here, plaintiff's testimony and the testimony of expert witness Mr. Corrado, establishes

            that the ladder was not tall enough to safely install the Gerry boards. Further, plaintiff's

            testimony establishes that he did not fall during the process of wiggling the ladder but rather, 30

            seconds after he stopped repositioning the ladder, "when I tried to fix the gerry board, that's

            when I fell" (NYSCEF Doc No 77 at 108: 11 - 108: 12). Plaintiff has established that he was not

            provided with adequate safety equipment, and defendants have failed to create an issue of fact.

            Accordingly, he will be granted summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law§ 240(1)

            claim.

            Labor Law 241 (6)

                     Defendants also move for summary judgment on plaintiff's Labor Law§ 241(6) claim.

            Plaintiff does not submit any opposition to this portion of the motion. However, defendants'

            arguments for dismissal are the same as they presented for dismissal of the Labor Law§ 240(1)

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                       Page 7 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                          7   of 15
[* 7]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            claim. Specifically, they argue that the statute can not apply to them because of the statute uses

            the same language as 240(1) stating "All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners

            of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, when

            constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith, shall

            comply with the following requirements" (Labor Law § 241 ). As discussed above the exception

            does not apply to defendants.

                   Additionally, they argue that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injury.

            However as discussed above plaintiff has submitted evidence establishing, he was not the sole

            proximate cause of the injury and thus the claim can not be dismissed on these grounds.

            Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs Labor Law§ 241(6) claim

            will be denied.

            Labor Law§ 200 and Common Law Negligence

                   "Section 200 of the Labor Law is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon

            an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work"

            (Comes v New York State Elec. and Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]). "Where the alleged

            defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor's methods and the owner exercises no

            supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law

            or under Labor Law§ 200" (id.).

                   Here, it is undisputed that the owner did not exercise any control over the operation and

            plaintiff does not submit opposition to this part of the motion. Accordingly, defendants will be

            granted summary judgment on plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims

            and the claims will be dismissed.

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                     Page 8 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                          8   of 15
[* 8]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            Timeliness of Cross-Motion

                   As an initial matter, defendants/ third-party plaintiffs object to third-party defendant,

            ABC's cross-motion for summary judgment as untimely. Pursuant to the status conference order

            dated March, 10, 2023 all dispositive motions were to be made no later than 60 days after the

            filing of the note of issue (NYSCEF Doc No 45). The Note oflssue was filed on May 25, 2023

            making the deadline to file dispositive motions July 24, 2023 (NYSCEF Doc No 46). However a

            "cross motion for summary judgment made after the expiration of the [deadline for making

            dispositive motions] may be considered by the court, even in the absence of good cause, where a

            timely motion for summary judgment was made seeking relief nearly identical to that sought by

            the cross motion" (Alonzo v Safe Harbors of the Hudson Haus. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., I 04 AD3d

            446, 448-49 [1st Dept 2013]).

                   Here, ABC cross moves on plaintiffs summary judgment motions seeking to dismiss

            plaintiffs Labor Law§ 240(1) claim, and to dismiss defendants/ third-party plaintiffs common

            law indemnity, contribution, contractual indemnity, and breach of contract for failure to procure

            insurance claims. It should be noted that defendants / third-party plaintiffs did not cross move on

            any of its third-party claims against ABC on plaintiffs summary judgment motion (MS #2).

            Defendants / third-party plaintiffs did however move for summary judgment in MS #3 on their

            contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance claims. ABC

            could have but failed to separately cross-move on defendants/ third-party plaintiffs' summary

           judgment motion (MS #3) seeking to dismiss the same claims. Notwithstanding this procedural

            defect, since MS #2 and MS #3 are being decided together, that portion of ABC's cross-motion

            on MS #2 seeking dismissal of the contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure

            to procure insurance will be deemed timely and will be decided on the merits. However, since

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                     Page 9 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                         9   of 15
[* 9]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            third-party plaintiffs did not move for summary judgment on their common law indemnity and

            contribution claims, there is no motion that is seeking "identical [relief] to that sought by the

            [cross-motion]" and thus that portion of the cross-motion is untimely and must be denied

            (Alonzo, 104 AD3d at 448-49).

            Contractual Indemnification

                   "Entitlement to full contractual indemnification requires a clear expression or

            implication, from the language and purpose of the agreement as well as the surrounding facts and

            circumstances, of an intention to indemnify" (Martins v Little 40 Worth Assoc., Inc., 72 AD3d

            483,484 [1st Dept 2010]). "A contractual indemnification provision must be strictly construed to

            avoid imposing a duty which the parties did not intend" (Baginski v Queen Grand Realty, LLC,

            68 AD3d 905, 907 [2d Dept 2009]).

                   The contract between The Macerich Partnership, L.P and ABC (the "Barricade

            Agreement") contains an indemnification clause that provides:

                           Contractor Indemnification. Except to the extent caused by
                           Macerich's or Macerich Indemnitee's gross negligence or willful
                           misconduct, or breach of this Agreement, Contractor agrees to
                           defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Macerich, the owner(s) of the
                           Center and Its management company, and The Macerich Company,
                           and all owned, managed, controlled, non-controlled and subsidiary
                           companies, corporations, entities, members, joint ventures, limited
                           liability companies and partnerships and all of their constituent
                           partners and members and such other entities as Macerich and any
                           person or entity having an ownership or possessory interest in any
                           portion of the Center (including, without limitation, lessors or
                           tenants), and each of them, and each of their respective affiliates,
                           partners, directors, officers, agents, employees, representatives,
                           consultants, contractors, and insurers (collectively, "Macerich
                           Indemnitee(s)"), utilizing legal counsel acceptable to Macerich,
                           from and against any and all claims, damages, losses and expenses
                           (including, without limitation, all fees and expenses of engineers,
                           architects, attorneys, paralegals, experts and all court, arbitration or
                           other dispute resolution costs), to the extent arising out of or
                           resulting from any of the following: (i) any accident, injury, damage,

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                         Page 10 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                         10 of 15
[* 10]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                            fine, penalty or resulting costs whatsoever caused to any person or
                            property arising directly out of the business conducted in or the use
                            or occupancy of the Centers or occurring in on, from, or about the
                            Centers or any part of them, or (ii) arising directly or indirectly from
                            any violation oflaw, or the ADA, or (iii) the Barricades and (iv) any
                            alleged or actual act or omission of Contractor or any concessionaire
                            or their respective licensees, servants, agents, employees, or
                            contractors, and from and against any and all costs, expenses,
                            attorneys' fees and liabilities incurred in connection with any claims
                            or proceedings brought.

                    ABC contends that while the Barricade Agreement states that "this Agreement shall

            commence on January 6, 2020 (the "Effective Date"), and shall terminate five (5) years later on

            December 31, 2024, unless sooner terminated as provided for herein", that since the Agreement

            was signed on March 2, 2020 it did not understand that the effective date was retroactive. Phillip

            Cockrell, the former Controller of ABC and the agent who signed the agreement for ABC

            testified that "when I look at a contract, I looked at the date it initiates, and it is a five-year

            agreement and did not notice that it says January 6th, which wouldn't make sense to me, I never

            heard of a retroactive contract, so it's not something that I was looking for" (NYSCEF Doc No

            210 at 45:5 - 45: 12). ABC argues that as the injury to plaintiff occurred on January 8th, 2020, it

            would not have agreed to the contract had it known of the agreement's retroactive effect.

                    "[W]hen interpreting an unambiguous contract term [e]vidence outside the four comers

            of the document is generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing" (R/S Assoc. v New York

            Job Dev. Auth., 98 NY2d 29, 33 [2002] [internal quotation marks removed]). "An

            indemnification 'clause in a contract executed after a plaintiffs accident may ... be applied

            retroactively where evidence establishes as a matter of law that the agreement pertaining to the

            contractor's work was made as of [a pre-accident date], and that the parties intended that it apply

            as of that date"' (Kolakowski v 10839 Assoc., 185 AD3d 427,428 [1st Dept 2020] [internal

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                          Page 11 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                            11 of 15
[* 11]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            quotation marks removed]; see also Pena v Chateau Woodmere Corp., 304 AD2d 442 [1st Dept

            2003] [finding that when a "retroactive term [in an indemnification provision] ... is clear and

            unambiguous on its face" then it should be applied from the stated date"]).

                   Here, the first term of the Barricade Agreement states:

                       1. TERM . The "Term" of this Agreement shall commence on
                          January 6, 2020 (the "Effective Date"), and shall terminate five
                          (5) years later on December 31, 2024, unless sooner terminated
                          as provided for herein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Macerich
                          may terminate this Agreement, at any time during the Term, with
                          or without cause, on thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof
                          as to any Center or all Centers. Contractor shall have 60 days
                          from the date of termination to remove the Barricades from the
                          Center. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should Macerich require
                          the removal of a Barricade sooner, Contractor shall remove the
                          Barricade from the storefront within twenty-four (24) hours of
                          the request, but Contractor shall continue to have sixty (60) days
                          to remove the Barricade from the Center. For the avoidance of
                          doubt, if Macerich requires the removal of a Barricade sooner,
                          Contractor shall remove the Barricade from in front of the
                          tenants space within twenty-four (24) hours of the request, but
                          the Contractor shall still have 60 days to remove the taken down
                          Barricade from the Center.
            (NYSCEF Doc No. 195 at p 1).

                   The Barricade Agreement is clear and unambiguous on its face and the its meaning must

            be interpreted based on its unambiguous terms. Therefore, the commencement date of the

            Barricade Agreement was January 6, 2020 and ABC's motion for summary judgment will be

            denied based on this theory.

                   ABC also argues that the indemnity provision is invalid as it violates General Obligation

            Law§ 5-321. General Obligations Law§ 5-322.1 states:

                           a contract or agreement relative to the construction ... purporting to
                           indemnify or hold harmless the promisee against liability for
                           damage arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property
                           contributed to, caused by or resulting from the negligence of the
                           promise ... is against public policy and is void and unenforceable

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                       Page 12 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                        12 of 15
[* 12]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            "[A] n agreement calling for full indemnification is void and unenforceable under General

            Obligations Law § 5-322.1 where the indemnitee is found to be at least partially negligent"

            (Pardo v Bialystoker Ctr. & Bikur Cholim, Inc., IO AD3d 298, 301 [1st Dept 2004]). "However,

            the statute does not bar enforcement of a contractual indemnity provision where the indemnitee

            was held strictly liable under Labor Law § 240(1) and there was no evidence of its negligence"

            (Masciotta v Morse Diesel Intl., Inc., 303 AD2d 309, 312 [1st Dept 2003] [internal quotation

            marks removed]).

                   Here, the Barricade Agreement requires ABC to indemnify defendants/ third-party

            plaintiffs for claims arising out the performance of ABC's work, except to the extent caused by

            defendant's gross negligence or willful misconduct. It is undisputed that the accident occurred

            during the performance of ABC's work as plaintiff was an ABC employee performing the work

            that was to be done under the Barricade Agreement. Further, since liability under Labor Law §

            240(1) is strict liability and there is no evidence of direct negligence by defendants/ third-party

            plaintiffs, the indemnity provision is triggered and ABC must defend and hold defendants / third-

            party plaintiffs harmless. Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted in defendants / third-

            party plaintiffs favor on their contractual indemnification claim against ABC.

            Breach of Contract for Failure to Procure Insurance

                   A party seeking summary judgment based upon an alleged failure to procure insurance

            naming it as an additional insured must demonstrate that ( 1) a contract provision required such

            insurance must be procured and (2) the provision was not complied with (Marquez v L & M.

            Dev. Partners, Inc., 141 AD3d 694 [2nd Dept 2016]).

                   ABC's insurance obligations in the Barricade Agreement state:

                           Macerich, the owners of each of the Centers, The Macerich
                           Company, and all owned, managed, controlled, non-controlled and

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                     Page 13 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                         13 of 15
[* 13]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

                           subsidiary companies, corporations, entitles, joint ventures, limited
                           liability companies and partnerships and all of their constituent
                           partners and members shall be named as additional Insureds to the
                           extent of the insurance limits prescribed in this section and to the
                           extent of the indemnification obligations of Contractor described
                           herein.

            A defendant will be entitled to dismissal for failure to procure insurance where it establishes that

            it procured the requisite insurance (Georges v Resorts World Casino New York City, 189 AD3d

            1549, 1551 [2d Dept 2020]).

                   Here, ABC has provided the Certificate of Insurance issued to the Macerich defendants

            (NYSCEF Doc No 239). Accordingly, ABC is entitled to dismissal of the breach of contract for a

            failure to procure insurance claim.

                   Based on the foregoing, it is

                                                   CONCLUSION

                   ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion (MS #2) is granted on the issue of liability on his

            Labor Law § 240(1) claim; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the part of defendants' motion (MS #3) to dismiss plaintiffs common

            law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims is granted; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the part of defendants' motion (MS #3) to dismiss plaintiffs Labor Law

            § 241(6) claim is denied; and it is further

                   ORDERED that the part of defendants/third party plaintiffs' motion (MS #3) for

            summary judgment on their contractual indemnification is granted as against third-party

            defendant ABC; and it is further

                   ORDERED that third-party defendant's cross motion (on MS # 2) to dismiss

            defendants/third party plaintiffs' breach of contract for a failure to procure insurance is granted

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                      Page14of15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                          14 of 15
[* 14]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 151984/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 280                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2024

            and the claim is dismissed.

                    3/19/2024
                      DATE                                                          PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.

                                     ~                                 ~
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                          □ DENIED
                                                                                                    □
                                          GRANTED                          GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

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

             151984/2020 HASAN, MOHAMMED vs. MACERICH COMPANY                                       Page 15 of 15
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                           15 of 15
[* 15]