Rodriguez v CB Devs. 2024 NY Slip Op 32044(U) June 17, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155327/2021 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. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 155327/2021
MOTION DATE 12/30/2023 RAYMOND ALBERT RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
- V -
CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB DEVELOPERS, LLC,C & B DEVELOPER LLC,CBJ MANAGEMENT LLC,FOOT LOCKER RETAIL, INC.,1314 DEVELOPMENT, LLC,ALBA DECISION + ORDER ON SERVICES, INC.,ALBA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.,ARC MOTION CONTRACTING, INC.
Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
1314 DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
-v- ALBA SERVICES, INC.
Third-Party Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Second Third-Party Plaintiff,
ALBA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC ..
Second Third-Party Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X
1314 DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Third Third-Party Plaintiff,
- V - ARC CONTRACTING, INC., Third Third-Party Defendant ------------------------------------------------------------------------X
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/8/A CB Page 1 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 1] 1 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49, 50, 51, 52, 53,54, 55, 56, 57, 58,59,60, 61,62,63,64,65,66,69, 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, 100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113, 114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134, 135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155, 156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176, 177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197, 198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218, 219 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY
Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument, which took place on October 31,
2023, where Lawrence A. Wilson, Esq. appeared for Plaintiff Raymond Albert Rodriguez Jr.
("Plaintiff'), Lindsay J. Kalick, Esq. appeared for Defendant Foot Locker Retail, Inc. ("Foot
Locker"), Jonathan E. Glasser, Esq. appeared for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/Second Third-
Party Plaintiff/Third Third-Party Plaintiff I 314 Development, LLC (" 1314 Development"), CB
Developers d/b/a CB Developers, LLC ("CB Developers"), C & B Developers LLC ("C & B"),
and CBJ Management LLC (''CBJ Management"), Alex Johnson, Esq. appeared for Third Third-
Party Defendant Arc Contracting, Inc. ("Arc"), Mehreen Hayat, Esq. appeared for Second Third-
Party Defendant Alba Environmental, Inc. ("Alba Environmental"), and Michael F. Harris, Esq.
appeared for Third-Party Defendant Alba Services, Inc. ("Alba Services"), motion sequence 001
is decided as follows:
Foot Locker's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross claims against
them is denied without prejudice as premature. Foot Locker's motion seeking leave to amend their
answer to assert cross claims for contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification,
contribution, and breach of contract against 1314 Development, Alba Services, Alba
Environmental, and Arc is granted. Foot Locker's motion for summary judgment on its cross
claim for contractual indemnification against 1314 Development is granted. Alba Services' cross-
motion seeking leave to assert crossclaims is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs motion
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 2 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
2 of 15 [* 2] INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law§ 240(1) is granted and his Labor Law §241(6)
claim is denied as academic. Alba Services cross motion seeking leave to amend their answer to
assert crossclaims is granted in part and denied in part.
A. Background
On June 5, 2018, Plaintiff was working as an asbestos handler at a Foot Locker store located
at 58 West 14th Street, New York, New York (the "Premises") (NYSCEF Doc. 108 at~ 2). He
was working on a platform makeshift roof of the first-floor bathroom cleaning up asbestos debris
(id. at~ 4). Plywood was placed by other asbestos workers on top of metal beams so that workers
could walk and work on the roof of the bathrooms (id. at ~ 5). The plywood was never secured,
and Plaintiff was unaware that other workers were removing the plywood (id. at~ 7). Plaintiff was
walking across the makeshift roof towards a ladder used to descend to the ground floor when he
realized that plywood was removed, forcing him to walk in 3-inch-wide metal beams to get back
to the ladder (id. at il 9). While attempting to walk on the beams, Plaintiff fell through an area
where the plywood had been removed (id. at ~ 10). Plaintiff testified there was no safety railings
or safety netting, nor were there safety belts, harnesses, lanyards, or lifelines (id. at ~ 14 ).
1314 Development owned the Premises while Foot Locker was a tenant (NYSCEF Doc.
58). Asbestos was discovered at the Premises in early 2018 (NYSCEF Doc. 59 at~ 6). The
asbestos remediation was handled by 1314 Development and CB Developers, and Foot Locker
vacated the premises during the remediation (NYSCEF Doc. 58 at~~ 9-11). Foot Locker did not
retain any contractor to perform asbestos remediation work (id. at ~~ 12-14). CB Developers, who
worked with 1314 Development to remediate the asbestos, informed Foot Locker than it would be
using its own contractors (NYSCEF Doc. 59 at~~ 10-12). Alba Environment provided a proposal
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 3 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 3] 3 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
to CB Developers to remove and dispose of approximately 3000 square feet of plaster material
identified in the 1st floor ceiling as part of the asbestos remediation (NYSCEF Doc. 172).
This case has a storied history and is actually the second action based on the same events.
The first action was filed on June 13, 2018 in Queens County Supreme Court under index number
709132/2018 (the "First Action") (see NYSCEF Doc. 30). Foot Locker appeared in that action on
August 24, 2018 (NYSCEF Doc. 31). 1314 Development appeared in that action on October 23,
2018 (NYSCEF Doc. 33). On October 29, 2018, Alba Services was brought into the First Action
by 1314 Development via third-party complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 34 ).1314 Development brought
Alba Environmental into the First Action via third-party complaint on November 20, 2020
(NYSCEF Doc. 41 ). On March 23, 2021, 1314 Development brought Arc into the initial action
via another third-party complaint (NYSCEF Doc. 46).
Plaintiff then commenced this action on June 2, 2021, and Justice Ulysses B. Leverett, who
presided over the First Action, ordered that venue be transferred to Manhattan and that the First
Action be consolidated with this action (NYSCEF Doc. 51 ). Thus, although a preliminary
conference order in this action was only entered on November 15, 2022, the parties have in
actuality been litigating this case since 2018.
B. The Instant Motion and Cross-Motions
i. Foot Locker's Motion
Foot Locker argues it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to it
because the undisputed documentary evidence demonstrates that it had vacated the Premises, was
not allowed to enter the Premises until the completion of asbestos remediation and did not hire any
contractors who performed remediation work. Likewise, Foot Locker argues it is entitled to
summary judgment dismissing crossclaims asserted against it because it did not have a contract
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS O/B/A CB Page 4 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 4] 4 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
with any defendant who maintains a cross claim for contractual indemnification against it.
Likewise, Foot Locker argues that because it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the
complaint as to it, it is likewise entitled to dismissal of common law indemnification and
contribution claims.
Alba Services, Arc, C&B Developers, CB Developers, CBJ Management, and 1314
Development all oppose the motion and argue that it is premature because depositions have not
yet taken place. Arc also opposes and argues the motion is premature. Plaintiff also opposes and
argues that Foot Locker is considered a statutory owner and is therefore not entitled to summary
judgment.
ii. Alba Services' cross motion
Alba Services seeks in its cross-motion leave to amend its answer to assert various cross
claims. Alba Services relies on the CPLR's instruction to liberally grant leave to amend in support
of its motion. Foot Locker opposes on the basis that the proposed amendments lack merit.
m. Plaintiff's cross-motion
Plaintiff cross moves for summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240( 1) and 241 ( 6)
claims. Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on his § 240( 1) claim because he
was engaged in altering a building when he fell ten feet to the floor due to plywood being removed
from areas of the bathroom's makeshift roof, and Plaintiff was not provided any adequate safety
devices to protect him from such a fall. Plaintiff argues that 1314 and Foot Locker are both
statutory Owners while CB Developers is a statutory contractor and agent of the owner. Plaintiff
claims Alba Environmental is a statutory contractor. All parties opposed on the basis no fact
depositions had taken place at the time of Plaintiff's cross motion.
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 5 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 5] 5 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
C. Discussion
I. Standard
"Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has
tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." (Vega v
Restani Const. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). The moving party's "burden is a heavy one and
on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party." (Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hasps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]).
Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce
evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact
which require a trial. See e.g., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980];
Pemberton v New York City Tr. Auth., 304 AD2d 340, 342 [1 st Dept 2003]). Mere conclusions of
· law or fact are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (see Banco Popular North
Am. v Victory Taxi Mgt., Inc., 1 NY3d 381 [2004]).
II. Plaintifrs Cross Motion
Plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim is
granted. The First Department has repeatedly held that where a Plaintiffs affidavit establishes a
prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240(1 ), and opposing parties fail to show that discovery
might lead to facts that would support its opposition to the motion, the Plaintiffs motion should
be granted, even though no depositions have been taken (Valasquez v 94 E. 208 Street Partners
LLC, 220 AD3d 472 [1st Dept 2023]; Laporta v PPC Commercial, LLC, 204 AD3d 538,539 [1st
Dept 2022]; see also Singh v New York City Housing Authority, 117 AD3d 475, 476 [1st Dept
2019]).
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 6 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 6] 6 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
Labor Law § 240(1) should be "construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment
of the purpose for which it was thus framed" (Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65
NY2d 513, 521 [1985]) which is to place "ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building
construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor"
(1969 N.Y. Legis. Ann .at 407). Labor Law§ 240(1) is violated when a plaintiff is exposed to an
elevation-related risk while engaged in an activity covered by the statute, and the defendant fails
to provide a safety device adequate to protect the plaintiff against the elevation-related risk or
provides an inadequate one (Jones v 4 I 4 Equities LLC, 57 AD3d 65 [1st Dept 2008]). Comparative
negligence is not a defense to an action predicated on Labor Law § 240(1) (Garcia v Neighborhood
Partnership Haus. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 113 AD3d 494 [1st Dept 2014]).
A fall caused by unprotected floor openings covered solely by unsecured plywood
constitutes a violation of Labor Law §240(1) (Alonzo v Safe Harbors of the Hudson Haus. Dev.
Fund Co., Inc., 104 AD3d 446, 450 [1st Dept 2013]; Peters v New School, 102 AD3d 548 [1st
Dept 2013]). Here, Plaintiffs uncontroverted testimony established that he was working as an
asbestos handler at the Premises cleaning up debris due to asbestos removal taking place on the
ceiling of the first floor. Unsecured plywood was used to create a makeshift roof ten feet off the
ground while Plaintiff carried out his asbestos remediation work. Workers used a ladder to reach
the makeshift roof to perform the asbestos removal. While Plaintiff was working on the far side of
the roof, away from the ladder, other workers removed plywood creating an opening to the area
where the ladder was kept and forcing Plaintiff to attempt to reach the ladder by walking across a
three inch wide beam. Plaintiff lost his balance and fell into an open space between the metal
beams and through the sheet rock of the bathroom ceiling which had previously been covered by
plywood. This established a prima facie violation of Labor Law §240(1).
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 7 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 7] 7 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
Despite multiple defendants serving as the owner/tenant of the Building or contractors on
the worksite, nobody has contradicted Plaintiff's sworn affidavit testimony. Moreover,
Defendants' argument that the motion is premature because they have not had an opportunity to
depose Plaintiff is disingenuous at best and a material misrepresentation at worst. Defendants had
all appeared in the First Action, which was initiated in 2018, and have provided absolutely no
excuse for failing to depose Plaintiff in that First Action.
Moreover, although the Defendants seek to depose Plaintiff to ascertain whether he asked
anyone to place plywood over the areas where it was previously removed, or for how long he
waited before trying to proceed back to the ladder, these issues are immaterial and would not
impact summary judgment on Plaintiff's§ 240(1) claims because comparative negligence is not a
defense to an action predicated on Labor Law § 240(1) (Garcia v Neighborhood Partnership Haus.
Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 113 AD3d 494 [1st Dept 2014 ]). Plaintiff cannot be considered the sole
proximate cause of his accident because it is uncontroverted that workers had removed plywood
from the pathway by which Plaintiff could safely descend from the bathroom ceiling (Rodriguez v
BSREP UA Heritage LLC, 181 AD3d 537 [1st Dept 2020] [failure to ask coworker to hold ladder
was at most comparative negligence and insufficient to convert worker's actions into sole
proximate cause of injury]; [Noor v City of New York, 130 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2015] [it is
conceptually impossible for a statutory violation, which serves as a proximate cause for a
plaintiff's injury, to occupy the same ground as a plaintiff's sole proximate cause for the injury]).
The Court finds the affidavit of Wilson Chimborazo, the owner of Alba Environmental,
submitted in opposition, fails to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat Plaintiff's prima facie showing
of a Labor Law §240(1) violation. Mr. Chimborazo alleges that "there was no reason for anyone,
including plaintiff. .. to walk on the bathroom ceilings at this project, since there was no asbestos
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 8 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 8] 8 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
asbestos in the bathrooms." However he also concedes contractors installed plywood walkways
throughout the project, including the roof of the bathroom ceiling where plaintiff was allegedly
injured and that all workers at the jobsite were aware they had to use the plywood walkways when
working on the roof of the project. (NYSCEF Doc. 172 at 11 4-5; 8). Moreover, the documents
annexed to Mr. Chimborazo's affidavit show that asbestos was detected immediately adjacent to
the bathroom.
In any event, Mr. Chimborazo fails to state that he was present at the worksite on the date
of the accident; that he has any personal knowledge of the accident; or that he ever gave
instructions to Plaintiff to not walk through the worksite that was the ceiling of the first-floor
bathroom.
An affidavit riddled with bald or vague assertions is insufficient to oppose a motion for
summary judgment (Castillo v TRM Contracting 626, LLC, 211 AD3d 430, 431 [1st Dept 2022]
[principal's bald assertions were speculative and insufficient to refute plaintiffs testimony on
Labor Law§ 240[1] violation]; JA.O. Acquisition Corp. v Stavitsky, 18 AD3d 389, 390-91 [1st
Dept 2005] [bald and vague assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment]).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §240 (1)
claim is granted against 1314 Developer LLC, the undisputed owner of the premises (NYSCEF
Doc. 156 at 12), Alba Environmental, the contractor responsible for removing the plaster material
in the first-floor ceiling, and CB Developers as statutory agent, pursuant to stipulation (NYSCEF
Doc. 180).
There are insufficient facts in the record to grant Plaintiff summary judgment to Defendant
CBJ Management and C & B Developers as it is only stipulated that CB Developers was the agent
of 1314 Developer. Therefore, summary judgment is denied as to them. Plaintiff has not sought in
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 9 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 9] 9 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
its cross-motion summary judgment against Alba Services, and as will be explained below, the
Court finds there are triable issues of fact as to whether Foot Locker is a statutory owner, therefore
summary judgment as to Foot Locker is denied, without prejudice.
Because Plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1) claim is granted, Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6)
claim is denied as academic (.Malan v FSJ Realty Group II LLC, 213 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept
2023]; Howard v Turner Constr. Co., 134 AD3d 523, 524 [1st Dept 2015]).
III. Foot Locker's Motion
A. Summary Judgment Dismissing Claims and Crossclaims
The term "owner" under Labor Law encompasses a person who has an interest in the property
and fulfills the role of an owner by contracting to have work performed for his benefit (Zaher v
Shopwell, Inc., 18 AD3d 339 [1st Dept 2005]). While Foot Locker argues the statute is silent as to
tenants, it appears to have expressly disregarded several controlling First Department cases which
have held that tenants may be liable (Reyes v Bruckner Plaza Shopping Center LLC, 173 AD3d
570,571 [1st Dept 2019); Henningham v Highbridge Communty Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 91 AD3d
521,523 [1st Dept 2012]).
Indeed, by Foot Locker's own admission, the asbestos remediation work in which Plaintiff was
injured was taken as a prerequisite for Foot Locker's planned renovation of the premises (NYSCEF
Doc. 59). Moreover, Foot Locker's argument that it was "out of possession" is insufficient to
warrant dismissal as it was still a tenant under the lease and the only reason it was "out of
possession" was because it decided to carry out a renovation of the premises. The e-mail chain
proffered by Foot Locker is insufficient to grant summary judgment because the last e-mail
provided showed CB Developers asking Foot Locker who to coordinate asbestos removal work
with, which indicates that Foot Locker may have exercised some degree of supervision or control
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR, RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 10 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 10] 10 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
over the work (Rizo v 165 Eileen Way, LLC, 169 AD3d 943 [2d Dept 2019] see also Birnbaum v
Hyman, 43 AD3d 374, 375 [1st Dept 2007] [issue finding, rather than issue determination, is key
to Court's determination of granting summary judgment]). Foot Locker also filed with the
Department of Buildings its plans for the interior renovations (NYSCEF Doc. 117) and retained
an architect for the interior renovation (NYSCEF Doc. 124). These facts, viewed in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, show that Foot Locker was not merely a disinterested and out
of possession tenant but was actively involved, to some degree, in the Premises' renovation.
As the issue of Foot Locker's supervision and control of the work is dispositive on whether it
is a statutory owner, there is some documentary evidence indicating Foot Locker was certainly
involved in the renovation process and may have been involved in coordinating work with the
asbestos removal contractors, the opposing parties have made a sufficient showing that they are
entitled to the deposition of a Foot Locker officer under CPLR 3212 (f).
Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties, and based on the record
presently before the Court, Foot Locker's motion for summary judgment is denied, without
prejudice, with leave to renew.
B. Motion Seeking Leave to Amend
Foot Locker's motion seeking leave to amend to assert cross claims against 1314 Development
LLC, Alba Services, Inc., Alba Environmental, and Arc Contracting Inc. for contractual
indemnification, common-law indemnification, contribution, and breach of contract is granted.
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
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 11 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
11 of 15 [* 11] INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
(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]). No party opposes the portion of Foot Locker's
motion seeking leave to amend and therefore it is granted as unopposed.
C. Motion for Summary Judgment on Contractual Indemnification Crossclaim
This portion of Foot Locker's motion is denied. The lease relied upon contains at 1 R 44 an
indemnification clause wherein Foot Locker agreed to indemnify 1314 Development for any act
of negligence or default by Foot Locker or any of its agent, servants, employees, contractors, or
licensees, or for injury to any person, firm or corporation occurring as a result of any work done
by Tenant (or person holding or claiming through or under Tenant) in or about the demised
premises. In this case, if Foot Locker is ultimately found to be negligent, then it may be required
to indemnify 1314 Development.
On the other hand, Foot Locker relies on a somewhat conflicting indemnification clause at 1 R
37 of the lease which states that 1314 Development will indemnify Foot Locker from any and all
liability resulting from a breach of any representations as to hazardous materials being present on
the premises or from the violation of any federal, state or local law governing hazardous materials
on, in or below the premises. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
the Court is unable to grant summary judgment to Foot Locker on its cross motion for contractual
indemnification at this time. The language of1 R 37 discusses indemnity for liability imposed due
to the presence of hazardous materials while the liability in this action is premised on an injury on
a construction site. There is, at a minimum, an issue of fact as to whether Plaintiffs injuries due
to insufficient safety devices falls within the scope of liability discussed in 1 R 37.
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 12 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 12] 12 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
IV. Alba Services Cross-Motion Seeking Leave to Amend
Alba Services cross motion is granted in part and denied in part. The only party who
opposed Alba Services' cross motion was Foot Locker. As Foot Locker correctly points out, there
is no contract between Foot Locker and Alba Services and therefore the portion of the cross motion
seeking leave to amend a cross claim for contractual indemnification against Foot Locker is devoid
of merit. However, as Foot Locker's motion for summary judgment was denied and it may still be
found negligent, Alba Services' cross claims for contribution and common-law indemnification
are not devoid of merit. The remainder of Alba Services' proposed amendments were unopposed
and are therefore granted.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the portion of Defendant Foot Locker's motion seeking summary
judgment dismissing all claims and crossclaims against it is denied, without prejudice; and it is
further
ORDERED that the portion of Defendant Foot Locker's motion seeking leave to amend its
answer to assert various crossclaims is granted, and it is further
ORDERED that Foot Locker's Amended Answer in the proposed form annexed to the
moving papers (NYSCEF Doc. 61) shall be deemed served on all parties who have appeared in
this action upon service of this Decision and Order with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that the defendants/third-party defendants who have appeared in this action,
within twenty days of said service, shall file a reply to Foot Locker's crossclaims; and it is further;
ORDERED that Defendant Foot Locker's motion seeking summary judgment on its newly
pleaded crossclaim for contractual indemnification is denied; and it is further
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 13 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
13 of 15 [* 13] INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
ORDERED that Alba Services' cross motion seeking leave to amend its answer to assert
various crossclaims is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further
ORDERED that the Alba Services' motion for leave to amend the complaint is granted, in
part, as follows: leave is granted to amend to include Alba Services' proposed first, second, and
third crossclaims against all defendants and third-party defendants, and leave is granted to assert
its proposed fourth crossclaim seeking contractual indemnification against all defendants and
third-party defendants except Foot Locker, and to this extent the proposed notice of crossclaim in
the form annexed to the moving papers (NYSCEF Doc. 91) shall be deemed served upon service
of a copy of this order with notice of entry; and it is further
ORDERED that leave to amend the Answer to include a cross claim for contractual
indemnification against Foot Locker is denied and the fourth crossclaim, to the extent it is asserted
against Foot Locker, is stricken; and it is further
ORDERED that the defendants/third-party defendants who have appeared in this action,
within twenty days of said service of the newly pleaded crossclaims, shall file a reply to Alba
Services' crossclaims; and it is further;
ORDERED that Plaintiff Raymond Albert Rodriguez, Jr. is granted partial summary
judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim against Defendants 1314 Development LLC, and CB
Developers d/b/a CB Developers, LLC, and Alba Environmental, Inc.; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff Raymond Albert Rodriguez, Jr.'s motion for summary judgment
against Defendant Foot Locker, CBJ Management LLC, and C & B Developers LLC is denied
without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED Plaintiff Raymond Albert Rodriguez, Jr.'s motion for summary judgment on
his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim is denied as academic; and it is further
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 14 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 14] 14 of 15 INDEX NO. 155327/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 232 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/17/2024
ORDERED that all parties are directed to appear at a conference with the Court on July 17,
2024 in-person, in Room 442, at 9:30 a.m., to discuss the filed note of issue and representations
throughout the motions papers regarding the lack of discovery as it relates to the various
crossclaims and defenses asserted. Should any party require an adjournment, the parties are
directed to meet and confer and provide several mutually agreeable dates to the Court via e-mail
at SFC-Part33-Clerk@nycourts.gov; and it is further
ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this
decision and order, with notice of entry, on all parties; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
6/17/2024 DATE HpN. 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 TRANS FER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
155327/2021 RODRIGUEZ JR., RAYMOND ALBERT vs. CB DEVELOPERS D/B/A CB Page 15 of 15 DEVELOPERS, LLC ET AL Motion No. 001
[* 15] 15 of 15