Motion-Secondary: Kevin Mcgonigal v. Nyy Steak Manhattan, Llc, Plaza Construction Corp., Baring Industries, Inc.

On September 12, 2013 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Kevin Mcgonigal, and Baring Industries, Inc., Nyy Steak Manhattan, Llc, Plaza Construction Corp., for Tort in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------ --------------------------------X
KEVIN McGONIGAL,
Index No. 158327/13

Plaintiff,

-against- REPLY AFFIRMATION
TO B&G ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTORS'
NYY STEAK MANHATTAN, LLC, PLAZA CONSTRUCTION
CORP. and BARING INDUSTRIES, INC., OPPOSITION

Defendants.
-------------- -------------------------------------------------------------X
Hon. Margaret A. Chan, J.S.C.
PLAZA CONSTRUCTION CORP., Motion Sequence No. 007

Third-Party Plaintiff,
Third-Party
-against- Index No. 595146/14

BARING INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant.
..____ ______----__
_____ ____ ----------------------------------X
BARING INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Second Third-Party Plaintiff,
Second Third-Party
-against- Index No. 595130/15

DAY & NITE REFRIGERATION CORP. and KIMCO
REFRIGERATION CORP.,

Second Third-Party Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------- ---X
NYY STEAK MANHATTAN, LLC and PLAZA CONSTRUCTION
LLC f/k/a PLAZA CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

Third Third-Party Plaintiffs, Third Third-Party
Index No. 595638/15
-against-

B&G ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, ESS & VEE ACOUSTICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC. and BARING INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Third Third-Party Defendants.
-------- -------------------------------- --------- ---------X

Alisa Dultz, an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of

[1786844/1] 1

1 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

New York, affirms the truth of the following upon information and belief and with knowledge of

the penalties for perjury:

1. I am Of Counsel to the law firm of Fabiani Cohen & Hall, LLP, attorneys for the

defendant/third third-party plaintiff NYY Steak Manhattan, LLC ("NYY Steak") and

defendant/second third-party plaintiff/third third-party plaintiff Plaza Construction LLC f/k/a

Plaza Construction Corp. ("Plaza").

2. I submit this reply affirmation in response to the opposition submitted by the third

third-party defendant, B&G ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ("B&G") to NYY Steak's and

Plaza's motion for (1) summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and

common-law negligence judgment on NYY Steak's and Plaza's third third-
claims; (2) summary

party claims for contractual indemnity against the third-party defendants B&G, ESS & VEE

ACOUSTICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. ("Ess & Vee") and BARING INDUSTRIES, INC.

("Baring"), or in the alternative a conditional order of contractual indemnity; (3) summary

judgment on NYY Steak's and Plaza's third third-party claims against B&G, Ess & Vee, and

attorneys'
Baring for common-law indemnity, including fees, costs and expenses/disbursements,

and contribution; (4) summary judgment dismissing all cross-claims and counterclaims asserted

by B&G, Ess & Vee, Baring and the second third-party defendants DAY & NITE

REFRIGERATION CORP. and KIMCO REFRIGERATION CORP ("Day & Nite").; and (5)

summary judgment on their claim against Baring for breach of its agreement to procure

insurance.

3. B&G opposes NYY Steak's and Plaza's motion for summary judgment to the

extent that it seeks summary judgment on their claims for contractual indemnity, common-law

indemnity and contribution from B&G. See B&G Opp. Aff. ¶ 1.

[1786844/1] 2

2 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

Preliminary Statement

4. B&G has failed to refute that the alleged accident triggered its contractual

indemnity obligation owed to NYY Steak and Plaza. B&G has also failed to refute that NYY

Steak and Plaza are entitled to summary judgment on their claims for common-law indemnity

and contribution. Accordingly, NYY Steak's and Plaza's motion for summary judgment should

be granted.

5. B&G contends that it isnot contractually obligated to inderanify NYY Steak and

Plaza because neither the lighting that itprovided, nor the open elevator pit that itfailed to cover

proximately caused the plaintiff's alleged accident. Rather, according to B&G, the plaintiff's

alleged accident was caused by the 2 x 4 that he allegedly tripped over and his own conduct in

walking backwards.

6. This argument lacks merit as it contrary to the terms of the indemnity provision

and the facts. The indemnity provision requires B&G to indemnify NYY Steak and Plaza for all

claims "which arise out of are connected with, or are claimed to arise out of or be connected

w_itl1"
the performance of B&G's work. See Plaza/B&G Subcontract, General Conditions, Art.

Defs.'
9(A) (emphasis added), at Aff., Ex V. The plaintiff has alleged and he has testified that

the accident occurred because it was dark. He also testified not just that he tripped and fell, but

that he tripped and fell into an unguarded pit. In light of his testimony, B&G's claim that the

alleged inadequate lighting and open elevator pit were not causes of the alleged accident is

ludicrous.

7. B&G's further argument that it is not obligated to indemnify NYY Steak and

Plaza because they have not proved B&G's negligence is equally meritless, because itis contrary

to the plain and express terms of the indemnity provision. The indemnity provision does not

[1786844/1] 3

3 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

condition B&G's indemnity obligation on B&G's negligence. B&G's indemnity obligation is

of"
triggered where the accident arises out of B&G's work or is "claimed to_arise out B&G's

work. Since the plaintiff claims that his alleged accident arose out of the inadequate lighting and

open elevator pit B&G's indemnity obligation is triggered pursuant to the clear, plain and

unambiguous terms of the contract.

8. B&G next argues that the accident did not arise out of its work because itdid not

leave the elevator pit unguarded. B&G ignores that Plaza's daily logs and Mr. Chin's deposition

testimony prove that B&G stored its materials in the elevator pit and that B&G was actively

using these materials to perform work at the 2LL level the day before the alleged accident.

Given that the accident occurred at 8:00 a.m. the day after B&G was working at the accident

location, it is evident that the elevator pit was unguarded because B&G failed to replace the

cover over the pit.

9. B&G's additional contention that its indemnity obligation is not triggered

because the requirements set forth in Article 9(A)(2)(a) and Article 9(A)(2)(b) are not satisfied is

also meritless. As an initial matter, the indemnity provision does not require that both

subdivisions are satisfied. In any event, Article 9(A)(2)(a), which requires that the accident

occurred while B&G was performing work in the area of the accident, is met because the

evidence shows that B&G was performing working on the day of the alleged accident by the

elevator pit.

10. Article 9(A)(2)(b) requires that the accident occur while B&G's "property,

personnel"
equipment or are in the vicinity of the accident due the performance of B&G's work.

B&G does not dispute that its material and property were in the elevator pit at the time of the

alleged accident. Nevertheless, it argues that the requirements of this subdivision were not met,

[1786844/1] 4

4 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

claiming that the provision requires that B&G was performing work at the time of the alleged

accident and that the stored materials proximately cause the accident. Both of these contentions

are meritless as this is not what is stated in Article 9(A)(2)(b).

11. B&G also argues that NYY Steak and Plaza are not entitled to common-law

indemnity because they were negligent. B&G makes no attempt to present any argument or facts

supporting its contention that NYY Steak was negligent. Therefore, NYY Steak's motion for

summary judgment on its claim for common-law indemnity should be granted.

12. Plaza's motion should also be granted. B&G's argument that Plaza was negligent

because it did not remove the 2 x 4 that the plaintiff claims he tripped over is insufficient to

establish Plaza's negligence because B&G has failed to refute that Plaza lacked actual or

constructive notice of the alleged dangerous premises condition. Therefore, under settled New

York law B&G has failed to create a triable issue of fact as to Plaza's negligence.

13. B&G's argument that NYY Steak and Plaza are not entitled to common-law

indemnity because B&G was not negligent is meritless. The evidence shows that B&G was

negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting and in failing to place the protective cover over

the elevator pit.

14. B&G's additional condition that Mr. Usher's affidavit is inconsistent with his

deposition testimony is not borne out by the facts. When Mr. Usher was shown Plaza's daily

records he testified, consistent with his affidavit, that B&G was performing work at the 2LL

level on the day of the alleged accident. The fact that Mr. Usher testified that he could not

remember what trades were working at the site on the day of the accident does not remotely

indicate that his affidavit is feigned to create a triable issue of fact, because his testimony was

based on his recollection, not the daily logs.

[1786844/1] 5

5 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

15. Accunlingly, NYY Steak's and Plaza's motion for summary judgment on their

claims against B&G for contractual indemnity, common-law indemnity and contribution should

be granted.

ARGUMENT

B&G'S CONTENTION THAT IT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO
TO INDEMNIFY NYY STEAK AND PLAZA IS CONTRARY
TO THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE INDEMNITY PROVISION

16. B&G argues that it is not contractually obligated to indemnify NYY Steak and

Plaza because the inadequate lighting and unguarded elevator pit were not causes of the accident,

NYY Steak and Plaza failed to prove that B&G was negligent, and there is no proof that that

B&G failed to place the cover over the elevator pit. Each of this arguments lacks merit. As

demonstrated below, under the broad terms of the indemnity provision, B&G's indemnity

obligation is triggered because the inadequate lighting and the unguarded elevator pit are claimed

of"
to arise out B&G's work. Furthermore, contrary to its argument, the evidence shows that

B&G removed the cover from the elevator pit.

17. B&G's additional argument that its indemnity obligation is not triggered under

Article 9(A)(2)(a) or (b) is also incorrect. With respect to Article 9(A)(2)(a) the evidence shows

that the accident occurred while B&G was working in the area of the elevator pit. With respect

to Article 9(A)(2)(b) the evidence shows that B&G stored its property and equipment at the

accident location. B&G's contention that subdivision (2)(b) also requires that the accident occur

contemporaneous with its work is contrary to the terms of the agreement and that the storage of

materials proximately cause the accident is contrary to the terms of subdivision (2)(b).

Therefore, pursuant to the plain and express terms of the indemnity provision, B&G is obligated

(1786844/1] 6

6 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

to indemnify NYY Steak and Plaza as a matter of law.

B&G's indemnity abligation is triggered under Article 9(A)(1)
of"
because the plaintiff's alleged accident is "claimed to arise out B&G's work

18. B&G's contention that its obligation to indemnify is not triggered under Article

9(A)(1) because the plaintiff's alleged accident was proximately caused by the 2 x 4 that he

allegedly tripped over and his own negligence in transporting the equipment, see B&G Opp. Aff.

¶ 4, is contrary to the express terms of Article 9(A)(1) and the facts. B&G's obligation
indemnity

is triggered under Article 9(A)(1) because the plaintiff's alleged accident is "claimed to arise out

of'
B&G's work, i.e.,the lighting which the plaintiff claims was inadequate and the unguarded

elevator pit,which the plaintiff claims he fellinto.

B&G's indemnity obligation is triggered because the alleged
accident arises out of and is claimed to arise out of B&G's work;
proof of B&G's negligence is not required to trigger its indemnity óbligatiõn

19. Pursuant to Article 9(A)(1), B&G is obligated to indemnify NYY Steak and Plaza

for all claims "which arise out of or are connected with, or are claimed to arise out of or be

with"
connected B&G's performance of the work. Plaza/B&G subcontract, Art. 9(A)(1), at

Defs.'
Aff., Ex. V. Since the accident arises out of and is claimed to arise out of inadequate

lighting and the open elevator pit,B&G's indemnity obligation is triggered.

20. In his Bill of Particulars, the plaintiff alleges that inadequate lighting and the open

elevator pit caused his accident. See Verified Bill of Particulars in Response to NYY Steak's

and Plaza's Demands, ¶ 5 (the plaintiff "was caused to sustain serious and severe injuries when

opening;" poor,"
he fell and/or stepped into an unguarded "the illumination in the area was

"[d]efendants, their contractors, agents and employees failed to ensure that the iobsite was

Defs.'
properly illuminated"); Aff., Ex. B (emphasis in original).

21. Further, at his deposition the plaintiff testified (claims) that his injuries were

[1786844/1] 7

7 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

caused by defective lighting and the open elevator pit. He testified that the hallway where the

dark."
elevator pit was located "was Plt 's EBT, at P. 92:21-25, and that he did not see the open

Defs.'
elevator pit before he tripped and fell into it. See id. P.97:25-P.98:2, at Aff., Ex. J.

22. This evidence irrefutably shows that the plaintiff's alleged accident "arise[s] out

of" of"
or is "claimed to arise out B&G's work. Therefore, B&G's indemnity obligation is

triggered under Article 9(A)(1). See Diudone v. City of Newport, 87 A.D.3d 608, 609 (2d Dept.

2011) (plaintiff's allegation that she tripped and fell in the roadway due to DiFazio's negligent

performance of its construction work triggered DiFazio's indemnity obligation owed to Verizon

for all claims arising out of DiFazio's "actual or alleged acts or omissions") (emphasis added);

Sand v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 923, 926 (2d Dept. 2011) (Verizon entitled to contractual

indeninity where DiFazio agreed to indemnify itfor allclaims arising out of DiFazio's "actual or

alleged acts or omissions"); U_lses v. Zeckendorf Bros. Realty Ltd. Partnershio Co., 28 Misc. 3d

1"
126(A), at *1 (App. Term, Dept. 2010) (owner and general contractor were entitled to

contractual indemnity from Atlantic where contract required Atlantic to indemnify them for all

claims which "arise out of . .. any accident . .. which happens, or is alleged to have happened");

DiPerna v. American Broadcasting Company, Inc., 200 A.D.2d 267, 269 (2d Dept. 1994) (where

plaintiff claimed he tripped over a rebar, ABC was entitled to contractual indemnification where

contract provided for indemnity for all claims which "arise or are claimed to arise out of . .. any

accident or occurrence which . .. isalleged to have happened").

23. B&G's argument that its indemnity obligation is not triggered because the alleged

accident was caused by the 2 x 4 that the plaintiff claims he tripped over and the plaintiff's

negligence in walking backwards, see B&G's Opp. Aff. 11 11-13, 17, 19, ignores the plaintiff's

deposition testimony and allegations/claims. With respect to the alleged inadequate lighting

[1786844/1] 8

8 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

B&G asserts that NYY Steak and Plaza speculate that inadequate lighting was a cause of the

accident. See id. ¶ 13. However, that is not the rule. The dispositive fact is that the plaintiff

claims that inadequate lighting caused his accident. The plaintiff's testimony (claim) that itwas

dark and that he did not see the unguarded elevator pit alone triggers B&G's indemnity

obligation.

24. B&G's contention that the open elevator pit that the plaintiff fell into was not a

cause of the alleged accident, because the open elevator pit is only where the plaintiff landed, see

B&G Opp. Aff. ¶ 38, presents a warped view of the facts. The plaintiff does not simply allege

that he tripped and fell. He alleges that he tripped and fell into an open elevator pit. See Plt.'s

EBT, at P. 97:25-P.98:2 ("I tripped and then I fell into the hole."). In light of the plaintiff's

of" of"
testimony, the alleged accident "arise[s] out and is "claimed to arise out the unguarded

elevator pit,thereby triggering B&G's indemnity obligation.

25. Contrary to B&G's contention, NYY Steak and Plaza have not tried to "change

case"
the facts of this nor have they relied on any self-serving affidavits. See B&G Opp. Aff. ¶

19. As set forth Argument II,infra, Mr. Usher's affidavit is not self-serving. Mr. Usher merely

sets forth in his affidavit the information contained in Plaza's daily logs. See Usher Aff., at

Defs.'
Aff., Ex. AA. NYY Steak's and Plaza's instant motion for summary judgment on their

claim for contractual indemnity is based on the plaintiff's allegations and the evidence which

of"
establish that his alleged accident is "claim[ed] to arise out B&G's work, thereby triggering

B&G's indemnity obligation under the plain, express and unequivocal terms of Article 9(A)(1).

26. B&G also repeatedly and mistakenly argues that itis not obligated to NYY Steak

and Plaza because they have not proved that B&G was negligent. See B&G Opp. Aff. W 11-13.

Thus, B&G incorrectly asserts that NYY Steak and Plaza are not entitled to contractual

[1786844/1] 9

9 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

inadequate,"
indemnity because there is "no evidence that the lighting was B&G Opp. Aff. ¶¶ 12,

13, the lighting was adequate, see B&G Opp. Aff. ¶ ¶ 16, 24, NYY Steak and Plaza have not

submitted expert proof showing that the lighting was inadequate, see id. ¶ 20, B&G never

received complaints that the lighting was inadequate lighting and B&G did not have notice that

the lighting was inadequate lighting, see id. ¶¶ 16, 24, and B&G did not breach of a duty of

reasonable care, see id. ¶ 13.

27. All of these permutations of B&G's argument that itis not obligated to indemnify

NYY Steak and Plaza because it was not negligent are wrong, because they are contrary to the

plain, express and unambiguous terms of the indemnity provision which do not condition B&G's

indemnity obligation on negligence. The indemnity provision clearly and explicitly provides that

of"
B&G's indemnity obligation is triggered because the alleged accident "arises out or is

of"
"claimed to arise out B&G's work. Indeed, B&G does not rely on the terms of the indemnity

provision to support itsargument, nor does itpoint to any case law supporting itscontention that

itis not obligated to indemnify NYY Steak and Plaza absent a finding that itwas negligent.

28. The reason is apparent. New York courts have consistently held that indemnity

of"
provisions conditioning indemnity upon claims "arising out or otherwise connected with the

performance of the contracted work do not require proof of the indemnitor's negligence or fault.

See, e.g., Brown v. Two Exchange Plaza Partners, 76 N.Y.2d 172, 178 (1990) (agreement to

indemnify for any claim "arising out of, in connection with or as a consequence of the performance

Work"
of the [subcontractor's] was not conditioned upon claims caused by the subcontractor's

(1"
negligence); Kârwoski v. 1407 Broadway Real Estate. LLC, 160 A.D.3d 82, 88 Dept. 2018)

("Cayre"
(indemnity provision which required Cayre Group, Ltd. or "the tenant") to indemnify

Tenant"
the landlord for all claims "arising from any act, omission or negligence of was a "clear

[1786844/1] 10

10 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

negligence'
and unambiguous indemnity provision that does not . .. require a finding of 'active

or fault; "[r]ather, all that is necessary to trigger the provision is a claim arising from any act or

(1"
omission of Cayre . .."); Licata v. AB Green Gansevoort. LLC, 158 A.D.3d 487 Dept. 2018)

(indemnity provision requiring contractor to indemnify owner for all claims "which arise out of .

of"
. . or are claimed to arise out the contractor's work could be triggered even in the absence of

(1"
negligence); Di Perna v American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 200 A.D.2d 267, 269

Dept. 1994) (indemnity provision requiring the third-party defendant to indemnify the

of"
construction manager and owner for all claims "which arise or are claimed to arise out the

work, does not condition the "right to indemnification on a finding of fault by [the third-party

defendant] . .. . Indeed, in addressing a 'loss . .. which arise[s] or [is] claimed to arise out of .

happened,'
..any accident or occurrence which . .. is alleged to have the agreement expressly

contemplates the absence of fault").

(1"
29. For example, in Santos v. BRE/Swiss, LLC, 9 A.D.3d 303 Dept. 2004), the

plaintiff, an employee of A Best, alleged that he was injured in a construction accident at the

defendant's premises when an I-beam that had been tied with a knot by employees of A Best was

being lowered to the ground and fell on him when the knot came loose. Similar to the indemnity

provision at issue, A Best agreed to indemnify the defendants for all claims arising out of A

Best's work. The lower court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on their

claim for contractual indemnity against A Best on the ground that questions of fact existed as to

whether A Best was negligent and if so, whether its negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's

accident.

30. The First Department reversed because the indemnification agreement did not "by

its terms, provide for indemnification against claims arising out of A Best's work only when A

[1786844/1] 11

11 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

negligent."
Best was Santos, 9 A.D.3d at 304. Similarly, in this case the indemnity provision

does not require B&G to indemnify NYY Steak and Plaza only when it is negligent. Thus,

B&G's argument that NYY Steak and Plaza are required to establish that B&G was negligent in

failing to provide adequate lighting and in failing to place the cover over the unguarded elevator

in order to obtain contractual indemnity is completely lacking in merit.

31. The cases that B&G relies upon at paragraph 14 and 21 are inapplicable.

(Paragraphs 14 and 21 of B&G's Affirmation in Partial Opposition are identical.) B&G asserts

(15'
that the courts in Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel, 31 A.D.3d 347 Dept. 2006) and in

Daniel v. 384 Bridge St.. LLC, 2016 Misc. LEXIS 2971 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013), found that

"dark" "poor"
the plaintiff's testimony that the lighting was or inadequate to meet the "statutory

standard." standard"
B&G Opp. Aff. ¶ 14. The "statutory alluded to by B&G in the Cahill and

Daniel decisions was a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) based on a violation of Industrial Code

Rules 23-1.30. See Cahill, 31 A.D.3d at 349 (evidence that lighting was dark did not meet

statute's requirement that illumination shall not be "'less than 10 foot candles in any area where

person are required to work nor less than five foot candles in any passageway, stairway, landing

or similar area where persons are required to pass'") (citing 22 NYCRR 23-1.30)); Daniel, 2016

Misc. Lexis 2971 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013) (same). These cases are plainly irrelevant to the

NYY Steak's and Plaza's right to contractual indemnity which turns on the very clear and

unambiguous indemnity provision obligating B&G to indemnify them for all claims "arising out

" of"
of or "claimed to arise out its work, not violations of Industrial Code Rules.

32. B&G's reliance on the court's decision in Sarmiento v. C&E Assocs., 40 A.D.3d

(1S'
524 Dept. 2007), see B&G Opp. Aff. ¶ 20, is equally misplaced. Sarmiento concerned the

plaintiff's negligence claim, not an indemnity provision triggered by accidents that are "claimed

[1786844/1] 12

12 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

of"
to arise out the indemnitor's work. In Sarmiento, the plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell

on a staircase owned by the defendant on the ground that the stairs were defective, because the

stairs were wet and because the lighting was inadequate. He submitted expert proof in support of

his negligence claim. With respect to the lighting, the First Department held that the plaintiff

defendants'
could not establish the liability based on inadequate lighting regardless of his expert

proof because the plaintiff testified that that there was sufficient lighting and that he fellbecause

the stairs were wet. See Sarmiento, 40 A.D.3d at 526.

33. The facts here are opposite to those in Sarmiento. The plaintiff in this case,

unlike the plaintiff in Sarmiento testified that he could not see in the area where the elevator pit

was located because itwas dark. See Plt.'s EBT, at P.92:21-25; P.97:25-P.98:2. Moreover,

unlike the plaintiff in Sarmiento who sought to establish that a triable issue of fact existed as to

the defendant's negligence, NYY Steak and Plaza need only prove that the plaintiff's claim

arises out of B&G's work, i.e.,the temporary lighting. Contrary to B&G's argument, NYY

Steak and Plaza are not required to prove through expert proof or by other means that B&G

of"
was negligent, they need only establish that the plaintiff's alleged accident "arises out or is

of"
"claim[ed] to arise out B&G's work. Since NYY Steak and Plaza have met their burden of

proof their motion should be granted.

34. B&G's reliance on a decision by the Supreme Court of Kings County in

Dorman v. 19-20 Industry City Assocs.. Inc., 4 Misc. 3d 1007(A) (Sup. Ct. Kings County

2004), see B&G Opp. Aff. ¶ 21, is similarly without merit. Aside from the fact that the

decision is not controlling as it is rendered by a lower court and not even one that is within the

First Department, the decision does not concern a contractual obligation to indemnify, it

concerns a negligence claim. The plaintiff in Dorman was facing a stack of plywood and

[1786844/1] 13

13 of 26
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 08:39 PM INDEX NO. 158327/2013
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 480 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

counting the number of sheets by running his hand over the stack because itwas too dark to see.

He was injured when a forklift hit him. At the time of the accident he had his back to the

forklift and did not see itstrike him. The forklift driver stated in his affidavit that he did not see

the plaintiff because he was not looking behind him as he backed his forklift.
up

35. The defendants, the owner of the premises and managing agent for the buil

Case Info

Judge

Margaret Pui Yee Chan Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 21, 2019

Case Filing Date

September 12, 2013

County

Parties

AURILIA, PATRICK Attorney for the Defendant
AURILIA, PATRICK Attorney for the Defendants
BARING INDUSTRIES, INC. Defendant
DIAMOND, ANDREW R Attorney for the Plaintiff
DULTZ, ALISA Attorney for the Defendants
HALL, THOMAS JAMES Attorney for the Defendant
Kevin Mcgonigal Plaintiff
LAMBOLEY, WILLIAM CONZELMAN Attorney for the Defendants
NYY STEAK MANHATTAN, LLC Defendant
PIROG, JONATHAN P Attorney for the Defendants
PLAZA CONSTRUCTION CORP. Defendant
PODELL, REED MICHAEL Attorney for the Defendant
POLLAK, KEVIN B Attorney for the Defendant
sacks and sacks, llp Non Party
SINGER, SCOTT NEIL Attorneys for Plaintiffs
SINGER, SCOTT NEIL Attorney for the Plaintiff
SNYDER, ALLISON ANN Attorney for the Defendant
NIKOLAOS DIAMANTIS Attorneys for Defendants
DAVID LORENSON Attorney
EILEEN FULLERTON Attorney
Peter Connors Attorney
JASON ANTIN Attorney
ALLEN LIGHT Attorney
RALPH DIAMOND Attorney
JAMES O'CONNOR Attorney
CAROL MOROKOFF Attorneys for Defendants
ANDREW ROSS Attorney
SUSAN SCARIA Attorneys for Defendants
SUSAN COLOTTI Attorney
KENNETH KUTNER Attorneys for Defendants
KYLE ZRENDA Attorney
JAMES CONNORS Attorneys for Defendants
ROBERT PALISENO Attorney
WILLIAM GOODBODY Attorney
ANTIGONE TZAKIS Attorneys for Defendants
DAVID LORETTO Attorney
ROBERT JUN Attorney
DAVID AGAY Attorney
VICTORIA RONEMUS Attorneys for Defendants
EDWARD GUARDARO Attorneys for Defendants
David LoRe Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Kevin Mcgonigal v. Nyy Steak Manhattan, Llc, Plaza Construction Corp., Baring Industries, Inc.

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties