Court Opinion

ID: 9945519
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:09:52.616566+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.335442
License: Public Domain

Rohles v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30566(U)
                   February 23, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157185/2019
                 Judge: David B. Cohen
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. 157185/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                             PART   58
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.         157185/2019
             GREG ROHLES,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.       004
                                                         Plaintiff,

                                                 -v-
             METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, THE
             NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
             METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY                                                       MOTION
             (CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY), and JUDLAU
             CONTRACTING/TC ELECTRIC, A JOINT VENTURE,

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 116, 117, 118, 120,
            121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
            were read on this motion to/for                                    RENEW/REARGUE/RESETTLE/RECONSIDER                 .

                      In this Labor Law action, third-party defendant Rebar Steel Corp. moves, pursuant to

            CPLR 2221(d), for leave to reargue defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of

            contractual indemnification (Seq. 003) and, upon reargument, for denial of defendants’ underlying

            motion.

                                                     I. Factual and Procedural Background

                      As set forth in this Court’s June 7, 2023 order (NYSCEF Doc No. 111), this action arises

            from an incident in March 2019 in which plaintiff was allegedly injured after being struck by an

            excavation machine while working at a construction site in Manhattan. Plaintiff commenced this

            action against defendants asserting claims for common-law negligence and violations of Labor

            Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Following joinder of issue, defendants commenced a third-party

            action against Rebar Steel asserting claims of, among other things, contractual indemnification.

             157185/2019 ROHLES, GREG vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION                                              Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157185/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

            After the completion of discovery and the filing of a note of issue, plaintiff discontinued his Labor

            Law § 240(1) claims against defendants.

                   Defendants then moved for summary judgment on the issue of contractual indemnification

            against Rebar Steel, which Rebar Steel opposed. While that motion was pending, plaintiff

            discontinued his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against defendants

            Metropolitan Transit Authority, The New York City Transit Authority, and Metropolitan Transit

            Authority (Capital Construction Company) (collectively, the MTA defendants); leaving the Labor

            Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against defendant Judlau Contracting/TC Electric,

            A Joint Venture (Judlau), intact (Doc Nos. 109-110).

                   By decision and order entered June 7, 2023, defendants’ motion was granted after it was

            determined that they were entitled to unconditional contractual indemnification (NYSCEF Doc

            No. 111).    In reaching that determination, this Court indicated that plaintiff’s decision to

            discontinue his claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1)

            meant that the only question remaining was whether defendants were entitled to full, unconditional

            contractual indemnification because they could only be found vicariously liable pursuant to Labor

            Law § 241(6). Rebar Steel now moves for leave to reargue the motion for partial summary

            judgment and, upon reargument, for an order denying the motion with respect to Judlau (Doc No.

            116), which defendants oppose (Doc No. 121).

                                           II. Legal Analysis and Conclusions

                   Rebar Steel contends that it is entitled to reargument because this Court overlooked facts

            in granting Judlau unconditional contractual indemnification when it misread the stipulation

            discontinuing plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against the MTA

            defendants to also apply to Judlau, causing this Court to incorrectly conclude that Judlau was

             157185/2019 ROHLES, GREG vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION                              Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 157185/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

            entitled to unconditional contractual indemnification because it could not be held directly liable.1

            In opposition, defendants maintain, among other things, that no facts were overlooked in deciding

            to grant their motion. Alternatively, they argue that if reargument is granted, they are still entitled

            to conditional contractual indemnification.

                    “A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the court, 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. Its purpose is not to serve as a vehicle to permit

            the unsuccessful party to argue once again the very questions previously decided” (Foley v Roche,

            68 AD2d 558, 567 [1st Dept 1979] [citations omitted]; accord Mangine v Keller, 182 AD2d 476,

            477 [1st Dept 1992]).

                    Here, Rebar Steel demonstrates that this Court overlooked a critical fact in deciding the

            underlying motion. The stipulation discontinuing plaintiff’s claims of common-law negligence

            and violations of Labor Law § 200 did not apply to all defendants, just the MTA defendants. Thus,

            the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims as against Judlau were not discontinued,

            and it was incorrect to conclude that Judlau could only be found vicariously liable under Labor

            Law § 241(6). Therefore, Rebar Steel is granted leave to reargue Judlau’s motion for summary

            judgment on the issue of contractual indemnification.

                    Upon reargument, Judlau is only entitled to conditional contractual indemnification. As

            discussed in the June 2023 order, the subcontract between Judlau and Rebar Steel included a broad

            indemnification provision requiring Rebar Steel to indemnify Judlau against claims “resulting

            from, arising out of[,] or occurring in connection with” Rebar Steel’s work providing and installing

            rebar. That provision was triggered by plaintiff’s injuries, which occurred while he was searching

                    1
                       Rebar Steel does not argue that the portion of the decision granting the MTA defendants unconditional
            contractual indemnification was improper, it only argues that the portion pertaining to Judlau was incorrect.
             157185/2019 ROHLES, GREG vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION                                          Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                                 3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 157185/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

            for rebar. Therefore, until a determination can be made regarding any purported negligence, Judlau

            is entitled to conditional summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Rebar

            Steel (see Madkins v 22 Little W. 12th St., LLC, 191 AD3d 434, 436 [1st Dept 2021] [granting

            conditional summary judgment on contractual indemnification, “subject to a determination

            whether [defendant] was negligent,” because broad indemnification provision triggered by

            plaintiff’s injuries]; Aramburu v Midtown W. B, LLC, 126 AD3d 498, 501 [1st Dept 2015]

            [similar]).

                    Accordingly, it is hereby:

                    ORDERED that the motion by third-party defendant Rebar Steel Corp. for leave to reargue

            is granted; and it is further

                    ORDERED that, upon reargument, the motion by defendant Judlau Contracting/TC

            Electric, A Joint Venture, for summary judgment on the issue of contractual indemnification is

            conditionally granted to the extent that Rebar Steel Corp. will be required to indemnify Judlau

            Contracting/TC Electric, A Joint Venture, to the extent that Rebar Steel Corp. may be found

            negligent; and it is further

                    ORDERED that counsel for the moving parties shall serve a copy of this order with

            notice of entry upon the Clerk of the Court (60 Centre Street, Room 141B) and the Clerk of the

            General Clerk’s Office (60 Centre Street, Room 119); and it is further

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General

            Clerk’s Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on

            Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Case (accessible at the “E-

            Filing” page on the court’s website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh); and it is further

             157185/2019 ROHLES, GREG vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION                           Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                         4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157185/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/23/2024

                    ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a trial scheduling/settlement conference in

            person at 71 Thomas Street, Room 305, on March 27, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.

                    2/23/2024
                      DATE                                                        DAVID B. COHEN, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                     X   GRANTED             DENIED       GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             157185/2019 ROHLES, GREG vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION                               Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                          5 of 5
[* 5]