Maddlx v. William Paley Found., Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 30846(U)

Opinion

Maddlx v William Paley Found., Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 30846(U)

March 17, 2025

Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155441/2021 Judge: Lisa S. Headley

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.

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. LISA S. HEADLEY PART 28 Justice

---------•~•~T-.ow.oow•ow•• --• •=• •=•~=•==-~~----------------------- X INDEX NO. 155441 /2021 PAUL MADDlX,

Plairitiff, MOTION DATE 10/09/2024

MOTION SEQ. NO. 003

1/1/lLLIAM PALEY FOU NDATfON, I NC., BLADE CONTRACT! NG. I NC., BLADE GENERAL CONTRACTING, DECISION + ORDER ON INC.,WLA ENGINEERING, P.C. MOTION Deferi dant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - T O T _____ ._ --- ---·---- ---.--.-------·---X

Toe following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number {Motion 003) 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,63,64,65,66,67, 68, 75. 77, 82,83,84, 86 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

Plaintiff, Paul Maddix ("plaintiff"), commenced this action to recover damages for injuries he alJcgcdly sustained \vhile working at the constrnction site located at l East 53rd Street~ New York, NY l 0022 ("subject premises)) o\vncd by defendant \Vil liam Paley Foun<lution, Im:. ("William Paley"). William Paley retained the co-defendants, Rbde Contracting Inc. and Blade General Contracting. inc. (·'the Blade defendunt5") as the general contractor on the construction project. · · Before the Court i.'j the movantTdefendant Willjam Paky's motion for summary judgment, pursuant to CP TR §3 212, to dismiss the ponion of the plainli n~ s compl a1nt bused on general negligence and violations of Labor Law §200 causes or actiDns. (See. NTSCEF Doc. }./o. 57 · · 68j. In addition, defendant William Paley seeks summary judgment as against the illadc defendants on the crossdaims for contractual indemni f1cat1on and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. (NYSCbF Doc. ]',/os. 57-86j. The Rlude defendants filed opposition to the motion. (See, NYSCLF Dnc. ll/o. 82). Pla1nti ff aiso filed opposition to the motion. (See, ATSCF:.F Doc ..Vo. 83). Wilham Paley filed a reply. (See, }../YSCEF Doc. No. 86j.

"rt is well settled that the proponent of a summary j LI<lgment motion must make a prima Jae.if: showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of hw, tendering sufficient evidence w demonstrnte the absence of any materi~l isS,ues of fact.)~ Pullman \!_ Si/vemwn, :8 N. Y .3d 1060, 1062 (2016), /1/varez v. Prmpec{ Hosp., 68 N.\'.2d 320~ 324 (1986). "Failure to make such sho\ving req L11res denial of the motion rcgardle:-:s of the sufficiency of the opposing papers." J.Yine,Kurd v. ,Vnv Vi1rk Unii'. ~\Jed. Crr., 64 K. Y.2d 85 l: 853 ( 1985) ( internal ciwtions omirred). "On a motion i·or summ~T)' judgment, facts must be viewed in lhe light most favorable to the non• moving party." CPT.R § 32}2. ::once suchprimajiu:ie showing has been made, the burden shi11s to the parly oppo!.ing th~ motion to produce cvidcntiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise material issnes oC fad which require a trial of the action." Cahrera v. Rodriquez, 72 A.0.3d 55 3, 5 5 3-5 54 ( I st Dep't 2010).

155441[2021 MADDlX, PAUL vs. 'WILLIAM PALEY FOUNDATION, INC. ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 003

1 of 4

[* 1]

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2025

I\"" cgligcncc and Labor Law §200 In support of the motion, defendant William Paley argues, infrr alia, that there was no dungerous or defective condition within the office space that w·ould trigger liability urn.l~r Tabor Law §200 or common law ncghgcncc because "this a12cident arose out or· the means, manner and method of Blade· s \Vork." (See, N"'r~\'CEF Dnc. ,Vo. 58). Therefore, Wilfoim Pale:· submits thut the plaintiff must establish that V/iHiam Paley directed and contro1led th~ plaimi Ir s injury producing \Vork. /d.

In opposition, the Rhule delendunts argue, inter alia, that even though \Villiam .Paley or its representatives were not on the con.-:;truc-lion site, New York law holds the owner liable for the acts or omissions of its statutory agent. (S(;e. ,Vr"'"SCEF Doc. ;Vo. 82). WilJiam Paley, in care of Ncv,,mark (Jrubb Knight Frank, exernted a cont met dated July 20, 2017, \Vith Blade Contracting, lnc. (See, ;vrSCEF Doc. ;vo. 63). The Blade defendants argue that l<c\vmark is \ViJliam Paley's stah.1tory ugent for labor ]aw purposes. (]\TYSCEF Doc. No 4,/ ar 13:3-1.:/:1). The Blade ddcndants argLie Blade's employees could not perform their work without Ncwmark's huilding manager, \vho provided guidance and assistance in transporting the stones from where they were stored in the basement up to the tenth noor. (l'I/YSCEF Doc. }./o. 42 at 40:13-17). In addition, the Blade defendants argue they lacked the ability to control the means and methods of the work since they needed to follow the building nrnnager's directions to avoid interfering with the building's tenants. There fore, the Bl ude de l ~n dan t' s position is that Blade· s em p! oy ees could only pcrfo rm \Vor k with the di red a~sist.unce of William Paley and/or its statutory agent, l\c\vmark. (S'e~, /1./YSCnF Doc. ;\'"O. R2)

In opposition, plaintiff argues. inter alia, that defendant WiJliam Paley, through its agents and employees, exerci~ed supervisory control over the constrnction work. PJaintiff testified 1hat LHadc employees, .. got the instruction from the building, the supervisor the maintenance guy in the buiJding (sic)." (See, l1./YSCEF Doc. No. 64 and 83). Plaintiff also testified that no one from the building provided him with eguipment or directed his work (N}SCE.F Doc. 1\"n. 65 m Exhihit ''(i" page 98). Pla1ntiff a~serts that Blade's supervisor, Curtis Sloky: testified that all ~afoty equipment, tools und instrudJons as to technique and performance of the work were given "exclusively by Blade employees.': (Exhibit "J" pages 76 - 77 .-VY,_\'CEF Doc . ..Vu. 68). Plaintiff testified that William PaJey's employee or agent instructed and assisted the plaintiff und his coTv.'orkers to remove a chair and a desk to clear the way for the worker~ to access the window. (}/YSCEF Doc. .~./o. 64 at Exhibit ''F" page 40-41). Further, the plaintiff daims the defendant's motion must be denied because there are issues regard.1ng whether the common-law negligence claim and the violation of Labor Law §2()0 apply in thi~ case given that the subject accident involves both a haza rd0w; condition and i SSll esrdated to the means and me l hods of work. (See, NYSC1.!,'F lJoc. No. 83},

Lahnr Law §200 daims arise from fin alleged defect or dangerous condition ex1 sting on the premises and those arising from the manner in ,vhich the work \Vas pcrfom1cd ...V. r f.ahor lm1' §200. Under Labor Law .{200, il is the generul <luty of ov,.,ners and contractors to make certain all equipment, machinery, and devices are positioned, operated, and guarded in a secure manner. Id.

1 55441f2{121 MAD DlX, PAUL V:5. WILLI AM PALEY FOUNDA Tl ON, INC. ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion NO, 003

[* 2] 2 of 4

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2025

.. For an ovmer to be held liuble for common~]aw negligence or purslrnnt to Labor Law §200, a plainii ff must 5how thut the ow11er supervised or controlled the work or had actual or constrnctive notice ur the umufe c:ondition causing the accident.': Cuarras v. Kourkoumclis, 265 A.D.2d 293, 696 N.Y.S.2d 475 (1999).

Here, the Court finds that Defendant Wilham Paky has failed to establish its primafacie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of la\v. Specifically, the evidence submitted indicates a triable issue as to whether the ov,mer, defendant William Paley, exercised the rcqui~ite control over the means and methods by \Vhich the work was carried out and whether the defendant br~llched its common law duty to provide the plaintiff with safe working. conditions. Accordjngly, the Court denies the branch of Defendant \\iilliam Paley's motion for summary judgment dismissing the pJaintiff s claims alleging common-law negligence and a violation or· f.ahor I.aw §200.

Contractus.1 I ndcmn ifiution Claim ln the motion, <l~frndant William Paley contends that there is a contract executed betv,.reen the owner, William Paley, mid contractor, the Blmte defendants, which includes an indemnification clause. (See, NYSCEF Doc. No. 63 at§ 5.1.11 - 12). Defendant \Villiam Paley argues that the deposition testimony of the parties "unequivocally demonstrates that the plaintiffs injuries arose out of Dlade:s work.)' According to William Paley, pursuant to the indemnification clause, the Blade defendants agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the defendant William Paley, among others: from claims that might arise from work that caLtses hodily injury or properly damage, \vhen such harm results from the negligence of the Blade defendant:; or their SL.1heontrac1ors-----even if the Ov,,:ncr is partly at fault. (i\'ee, ?•./Y.YCFF Due. .'Vo. 58). Therefor~, defendant Wilham Pllley llrgues that it is entitled to summary judgment on its contractual imfrmnity claim.

In opposition, the Blade defendants a';sert lhat under Nev,,' York law, a party seeking contractual indemnity needs only to prove thut it was free from neghgence and held liable solely by statutory mandate. The Blade defendunts funh~r urgue that since the defendant Willjam Paley has not cstahlished thm 11 is fre~ from negligence, the Court should deny its motion fol' summary j udgm en t on its indem n i fi cation d aim. The B lud e defendants also argue that there are issues of facts regarding th~ <lefondunt Willimn Paley's direction and control over the \vork performed) and therefore, th~ dd~ndant-ow11el" is not entitled to summary judgment.

In th~ moving papers, the defendant William Paley cites to an indemn1fi~a.tion dause that does not app~ur in the contract executed benvccn the ov,,.11er and contractor, ann~xed as Exhibit E. (See }{}-'~5CEF Doc No. 58 at ii 20 and NYSCEF Doc. . Vo. 6Jj. Here, there is an ambiguity as to the existence of an indemnity clause in cffocr, -~peci fie-ally ut the lime of the accident, between defendant William Pal~y and the Blade defendants. As such, the defendant \ViUiam Puley's motion appJication for summary judgm~nt us to contractual indemnification against the Blad~ defe11dant is denied.

Breach of Contract for Failure to Procure Insurance Lastly, in the motion, dckndanl William T1aley argues, inter alia. that their contract with th~ Bbde defendants required the 13ladc ddcndants lo procure insurance for their work and include

155441/2021 MADDIX, PAUL VG.. WlLUAM PALEY FOUNDATION, INC. ET AL P.age 3 of4 Motion No. 0-0 J

[* 3] 3 of 4

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 94 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2025

the William Paley Foundation as an additional insure<l party. (Se(;', }Vl~S'CEF Doc. No. 58). Sp eci fi call y, ddern.b.n t Willi am Paley submits that the con tract expres ~ l y requires, inter al i a, the conlracwr lo obtain insurance from an authorized provider to cover claims arising from its operations, including those caused by the contractor's n~gligent acts or omissions[.] Id. Thus, the defendant contends that the 1:3 lade defendants breached the contract and have failed to fulfill their obligation to obta1n the required insurarn;~ and name William Paley Foundation as an addiiional insured. thus Wi lIi am Paley is en ti l1~d to damages.

In 0ppusition, the Blade defendants argue, inter alia} that <lefendanl William Paley excluded thjs purported contractual requirement from the contract) and lhe General Conditions were not annexed to the parties: negotiated and executed Contract. (See. NYSCEF Doc. /1/0. 82). The Blade defendants contend that that the requirement to provide insurance is t·ol.lm.l solely in the General Conditions, which arc jncorporated by reference into the contract.

This Court finds that the insurance dau-,e re for~m:eJ in paragrnph 3 3 of defendmlt Willif1m Paky,s affinnation in support does not a.pptar in th~ c011tract referenced by defendmn Wilham Paky in HxhihiI t:. (See, 1VYSC:F..F Doc. ,Vo. 58 and 63 ). Her~, there is ambiguity as to the existence or an insurance daLise, which leads to a question of fact precluding defendant William Paley from summary judgment in relation to its breach of contract daim. See: JRS Reuity Owner LLC v. Am trust lnrl. Underwriters Ltd, 192 AlJ3d 449 (1st Dcp't 2021 ).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDFRF.-0 that the portion of defendant William Paley's motion for an Order, pursuant to CI' LR §3 212, granting defendant \Villiam Paley summary judgment on the issue or liabi lily a-:; it related to Labor Law §20() and negligence causes of action i ~ DK'lIRD; a11d it is further ORDFRF,D thut the portion of defendant William Paky~s mot1on for fill Order, pursuant w CPLR §3212. granting defendant William Paley summary judgment as against Blade Connacting Inc. and llladc General Contracting Inc. on lhe cross duims t·or contractual or

indemnification and breach contract for failure to procure insurance is DENIED~ and it is further ORDER.ED that any reque~led relid sought not expressly addressed herein has nonetheless been considered; an<l it i ~ fort her ORDERED that within 30 days of entry_. movant•defendant shall ~erve a copy of this Deci~ion/Order upon the alJ the parties \Vith notice or enlry.

lhis constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

3/17!2025

DATE

~

CHECX ONE: CASE 01$ POS!=O NON-FINAL DISP 0SI1 ION

G RANTE O 0 0cNU:O GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPL.ICA HON: SETTI.E ORDER SIJ6MIT ORDER CHECK IF AP PR;O PRI A re:: INCLUDES TRAN SfEPJR EASS IG N FIDIJCI A.RY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

155441/2021 MAOOIX, PAUL vs, WlLJ..IAM PALEY FOUNDATION, INC. ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. Oil!

4 of 4

[* 4]