Aguirre v 635 Madison Fee Prop. Owner LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 33428(U) September 27, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151111/2021 Judge: Mary V. Rosado 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. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 151111/2021 JEAN AGUIRRE, MOTION DATE 09/10/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 006 - V -
635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY OWNER LLC,TECTONIC BUILDERS INC.,BRONXDALE ELECTRIC DECISION + ORDER ON INC.,IRONWOOD REAL TY CORPORATION, RICHEMONT MOTION NORTH AMERICA, INC.,MONTBLANC,
Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC. and MONTBLANC
Plaintiffs, Third-Party Index No. 154132/2021 -v-
TECTONIC BUILDERS INC.
Defendant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, Second Third-Party Index No. 595529/2021 -against-
PRACTICAL PLUMBING AND HEATING INC.
Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 314, 315, 316, 317, 318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338, 339,340,341,342,343,344,345,390,391,392,393,394,395,396,397,398,399,400,409,410 were read on this motion to/for AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS
Upon the foregoing documents, Defendants 635 Madison Fee Property Owner LLC ("635
Madison"), Ironwood Realty Corporation ("Ironwood"), Richemont North America, Inc.
151111/2021 AGUIRRE, JEAN vs. 635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY Page 1 of6 Motion No. 006
1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
("Richemont"), and Montblanc (collectively "Movants") motion seeking leave to amend their
answer to assert cross-claims for contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification
against Second Third-Party Defendant Practical Plumbing and Heating Inc. ("Practical") is
granted.
I. Background
For a more thorough recitation of the facts, the reader is referred to the Court's Decision
and Order on motion sequence 003.
Pertinent to this motion, Montblanc entered a written agreement with Defendant/Second
Third-Party Plaintiff Tectonic Builders Inc. ("Tectonic"). Tectonic served as a general contractor
on a renovation project for Movants. Tectonic in turn subcontracted with Second-Third Party
Defendant Practical Plumbing and Heating Inc. ("Practical").
The Note of Issue was filed on October 31, 2023, and several parties have moved for
summary judgment, including the Movants. However, Movants now seek to amend their answers
to include crossclaims against Practical. Movants claim they only discovered this omission in
April/May of 2024. Movants concede that their motion comes late in litigation, but that there is no
prejudice or surprise to Practical which would warrant denying amendment.
Plaintiff takes no position on whether Movants should be permitted leave to amend, nor do
Tectonic or Bronxdale Electric, Inc. ("Bronxdale"). However, Practical opposes amendment.
Practical argues there is no merit to any cross-claim for common law indemnification because
Practical is entitled to protection afforded by Worker's Compensation Law §29(6). While Practical
concedes there is an exception to the Worker's Compensation bar where a Plaintiff suffers a grave
injury, Practical argues Plaintiff has suffered no such injury here. Practical argues that the proposed
crossclaim for contractual indemnification is likewise meritless as there is no contract Practical
151111/2021 AGUIRRE, JEAN vs. 635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 006
2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
and Ironwood or Practical and Richemont. The indemnification agreement between Practical and
Tectonic only agreed to indemnify the "Owner of the property" while Richemont, Ironwood, and
Montblanc all admit to being lessees. Finally, Practical argues that Movants request is unduly
prejudicial as it was made after motions for summary judgment have been fully briefed and
discovery is closed. Practical argues that Movants had years to amend their Answers prior to the
note of issue being filed but failed to do so.
In reply, Movants argue there is no real prejudice because Practical was granted an
extension to move for summary judgment and has since filed a motion which explicitly seeks
dismissal of the proposed common law indemnification and contractual indemnifications which
Movants seek to assert (see Mot. Seq. 007). Movants also argue that it would be a waste of judicial
resources to deny leave to amend since in that scenario Defendants would be forced to file a
separate action under a separate index number.
II. Discussion
A. Standard
Leave to amend pleadings is freely granted in the absence of prejudice if the proposed
amendment is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law (Mashinksy v Drescher, 188 AD3d 465
[1st Dept 2020]). A party opposing a motion to amend must demonstrate that it would be
substantially prejudiced by the amendment, or the amendments are patently devoid of merit
(Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist. v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 298 AD2d 180, 181
[1st Dept 2002]). Delay alone is not sufficient to deny leave to amend (Johnson v Montefiore
Medical Center, 203 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2022]).
151111/2021 AGUIRRE, JEAN vs. 635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 006
3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
B. Common Law Indemnification
Movants are granted leave to amend their Answers to assert common law indemnification
claims against Practical. Plaintiffs verified bill of particulars alleges a traumatic brain injury, and
his bill of particulars, confirmed by deposition testimony, has shown that Plaintiff has not returned
to employment. Thus, there is evidence within the record which supports a claim for common law
indemnification against Practical as a trier of fact may conclude that Plaintiff suffered a brain
injury within the meaning of§ 11 of the Workers' Compensation statute. The proposed amendment
is not so patently devoid of merit so as to deny the instant motion.
Moreover, the Court finds that Movants' delay in seeking amendment is no bar to asserting
their proposed crossclaims, as Practical can neither claim prejudice or surprise resulting from
Movants' delay. Indeed, the Movants have already expressly sought this relief in their original
motion for summary judgment which was briefed months prior to the instant motion, and Practical
opposed. Further, Practical has filed its own motion seeking dismissal of the proposed crossclaims.
Thus, the alleged prejudice is insufficient to warrant denying the instant motion.
C. Contractual Indemnification
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Aguirre v 635 Madison Fee Prop. Owner LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 33428(U) September 27, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 151111/2021 Judge: Mary V. Rosado 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. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 151111/2021 JEAN AGUIRRE, MOTION DATE 09/10/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 006 - V -
635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY OWNER LLC,TECTONIC BUILDERS INC.,BRONXDALE ELECTRIC DECISION + ORDER ON INC.,IRONWOOD REAL TY CORPORATION, RICHEMONT MOTION NORTH AMERICA, INC.,MONTBLANC,
Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
RICHEMONT NORTH AMERICA, INC. and MONTBLANC
Plaintiffs, Third-Party Index No. 154132/2021 -v-
TECTONIC BUILDERS INC.
Defendant -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Plaintiff, Second Third-Party Index No. 595529/2021 -against-
PRACTICAL PLUMBING AND HEATING INC.
Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 314, 315, 316, 317, 318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326,327,328,329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338, 339,340,341,342,343,344,345,390,391,392,393,394,395,396,397,398,399,400,409,410 were read on this motion to/for AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS
Upon the foregoing documents, Defendants 635 Madison Fee Property Owner LLC ("635
Madison"), Ironwood Realty Corporation ("Ironwood"), Richemont North America, Inc.
151111/2021 AGUIRRE, JEAN vs. 635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY Page 1 of6 Motion No. 006
1 of 6 [* 1] INDEX NO. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
("Richemont"), and Montblanc (collectively "Movants") motion seeking leave to amend their
answer to assert cross-claims for contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification
against Second Third-Party Defendant Practical Plumbing and Heating Inc. ("Practical") is
granted.
I. Background
For a more thorough recitation of the facts, the reader is referred to the Court's Decision
and Order on motion sequence 003.
Pertinent to this motion, Montblanc entered a written agreement with Defendant/Second
Third-Party Plaintiff Tectonic Builders Inc. ("Tectonic"). Tectonic served as a general contractor
on a renovation project for Movants. Tectonic in turn subcontracted with Second-Third Party
Defendant Practical Plumbing and Heating Inc. ("Practical").
The Note of Issue was filed on October 31, 2023, and several parties have moved for
summary judgment, including the Movants. However, Movants now seek to amend their answers
to include crossclaims against Practical. Movants claim they only discovered this omission in
April/May of 2024. Movants concede that their motion comes late in litigation, but that there is no
prejudice or surprise to Practical which would warrant denying amendment.
Plaintiff takes no position on whether Movants should be permitted leave to amend, nor do
Tectonic or Bronxdale Electric, Inc. ("Bronxdale"). However, Practical opposes amendment.
Practical argues there is no merit to any cross-claim for common law indemnification because
Practical is entitled to protection afforded by Worker's Compensation Law §29(6). While Practical
concedes there is an exception to the Worker's Compensation bar where a Plaintiff suffers a grave
injury, Practical argues Plaintiff has suffered no such injury here. Practical argues that the proposed
crossclaim for contractual indemnification is likewise meritless as there is no contract Practical
151111/2021 AGUIRRE, JEAN vs. 635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 006
2 of 6 [* 2] INDEX NO. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
and Ironwood or Practical and Richemont. The indemnification agreement between Practical and
Tectonic only agreed to indemnify the "Owner of the property" while Richemont, Ironwood, and
Montblanc all admit to being lessees. Finally, Practical argues that Movants request is unduly
prejudicial as it was made after motions for summary judgment have been fully briefed and
discovery is closed. Practical argues that Movants had years to amend their Answers prior to the
note of issue being filed but failed to do so.
In reply, Movants argue there is no real prejudice because Practical was granted an
extension to move for summary judgment and has since filed a motion which explicitly seeks
dismissal of the proposed common law indemnification and contractual indemnifications which
Movants seek to assert (see Mot. Seq. 007). Movants also argue that it would be a waste of judicial
resources to deny leave to amend since in that scenario Defendants would be forced to file a
separate action under a separate index number.
II. Discussion
A. Standard
Leave to amend pleadings is freely granted in the absence of prejudice if the proposed
amendment is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law (Mashinksy v Drescher, 188 AD3d 465
[1st Dept 2020]). A party opposing a motion to amend must demonstrate that it would be
substantially prejudiced by the amendment, or the amendments are patently devoid of merit
(Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist. v National Union Fire Ins. Co., 298 AD2d 180, 181
[1st Dept 2002]). Delay alone is not sufficient to deny leave to amend (Johnson v Montefiore
Medical Center, 203 AD3d 462 [1st Dept 2022]).
151111/2021 AGUIRRE, JEAN vs. 635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 006
3 of 6 [* 3] INDEX NO. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
B. Common Law Indemnification
Movants are granted leave to amend their Answers to assert common law indemnification
claims against Practical. Plaintiffs verified bill of particulars alleges a traumatic brain injury, and
his bill of particulars, confirmed by deposition testimony, has shown that Plaintiff has not returned
to employment. Thus, there is evidence within the record which supports a claim for common law
indemnification against Practical as a trier of fact may conclude that Plaintiff suffered a brain
injury within the meaning of§ 11 of the Workers' Compensation statute. The proposed amendment
is not so patently devoid of merit so as to deny the instant motion.
Moreover, the Court finds that Movants' delay in seeking amendment is no bar to asserting
their proposed crossclaims, as Practical can neither claim prejudice or surprise resulting from
Movants' delay. Indeed, the Movants have already expressly sought this relief in their original
motion for summary judgment which was briefed months prior to the instant motion, and Practical
opposed. Further, Practical has filed its own motion seeking dismissal of the proposed crossclaims.
Thus, the alleged prejudice is insufficient to warrant denying the instant motion.
C. Contractual Indemnification
The Court grants Movants' motion seeking leave to assert crossclaims for contractual
indemnification. The agreement between Practical and Tectonic states that Practical:
"shall indemnify and hold harmless the owner and contractor, and agents and employees of any of them from and against claims, damages, losses and expenses .... arising out of or resulting from performance of the Work under this Subcontract, provided that such claim, damage, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death ... but only to the extent caused in whole or in part by negligent acts or omissions of the Subcontractor."
The Court of Appeals has held that indemnification provisions are to be strictly construed
to avoid reading into them a duty which the parties did not intend to be assumed (Tanking v Port
151111/2021 AGUIRRE, JEAN vs. 635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY Page 4 of 6 Motion No. 006
[* 4] 4 of 6 INDEX NO. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
Auth. of NY & NJ, 3 NY3d 486,490 [2004] citing Hooper Assoc. v AGS Computes, 74 NY2d
487, 491 [1989]). This has been recently reiterated by the First Department, who has held that
indemnification provisions should not be "judicially rewritten to create obligations that were not
"unambiguously" stated " (Weidtman v Tremont Renaissance Haus. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 224
AD3d 488, 491 [1st Dept 2024]). The indemnification clause at issue is clear that an Owner is
entitled to indemnification. 635 Madison owns the land on which the worksite is located and the
unconverted deposition testimony is that Ironwood owns the building (NYSCEF Doc. 146 at 17:2-
8). Thus, 635 Madison and Ironwood may be considered "owners" under the applicable
indemnification clause. Moreover, the AIA agreement defines Montblanc, a division of Richemont
North America, Inc. as the "Owner" and Tectonic as the "Contractor." (NYSCEF Doc. 319). The
indemnification clause in the subcontract is a product of the AIA agreement executed between
Montblanc and Tectonic. Therefore, Montblanc and Richemont, which are defined as "Owners"
in the AIA agreement, can assert crossclaims for contractual indemnification against Practical.
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED that 635 Madison Fee Property Owner LLC, Montblanc, Ironwood Realty
Corporation, and Richemont North America, Inc. motion seeking leave to amend their answers to
assert crossclaims of common law indemnification and contractual indemnification against Second
Third-Party Defendant Practical Plumbing and Heating Inc. is granted, and the proposed answers
annexed to the moving papers (NYSCEF Docs. 316, 317, and 318) shall be deemed served upon
service of a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that 635 Madison Fee Property Owner LLC, Montblanc, Ironwood Realty
Corporation, and Richemont North America, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment (Mot. Seq. 002)
shall be supplemented to reflect the Amended Answers asserting these crossclaims; and it is further
151111/2021 AGUIRRE, JEAN vs. 635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY Page 5 of 6 Motion No. 006
5 of 6 [* 5] INDEX NO. 151111/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 429 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2024
ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Movants shall serve a copy of this
Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties via NYSCEF.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
9/27/2024 DATE HON. MARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION : SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
15111112021 AGUIRRE, JEAN vs. 635 MADISON FEE PROPERTY Page 6 of 6 Motion No. 006
6 of 6 [* 6]