HECTOR ROBLES v. << (2026)

/21

Perry, Van Etten, Rainis & Kutner, LLP, Melville (Joseph K. Strang of counsel), for Fordham Valentine Associates LLC, Janel Management Corp. and Pav–Lak Contracting Inc., respondents.

Ahmuty Demers & McManus, LLP, Albertson (Nicholas P. Calabria of counsel), for East End Concrete Industries, Inc., respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Shawn T. Kelly, J.), entered on or about April 10, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from, denied so much of the motion of third-party defendant Top Notch Finishes, Inc. as sought summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification claim by third-party plaintiffs Fordham Valentine Associates LLC f/k/a Fordham Valentine Associates, Jenel Real Estate LLC, Jenel Management Corp., Pav–Lak Contracting Inc., and the cross-claim by third-party defendant East End Concrete Industries, Inc. for contribution and common-law indemnification, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion insofar as dismissing East End's cross-claim as abandoned, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Top Notch failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing third-party plaintiffs' contractual indemnification claim, as it failed to eliminate factual issues as to whether plaintiff's injuries “ar[ose] out of” his carpentry work.  Plaintiff was injured while performing his assigned work of moving sheetrock boards, which were used in Top Notch's carpentry work, from the first floor of the building to the basement.  Plaintiff was performing this work under the directives of his foreman and in accordance with Top Notch's obligations under its trade agreement to move its own materials where needed on the construction site.  As a result, the broadly worded indemnification clause requiring Top Notch, as indemnitor, to indemnify and hold harmless third party-plaintiffs from any and all claims “arising out of, or resulting from, the Trade Work under the [carpentry] Trade Contract to the extent such Work was performed by, or contracted through, [Top Notch]” was potentially triggered in light of the facts indicating a possible nexus between the injury and the carpentry trade work's performance (cf.  Speechio v. Starbucks Corp., 248 AD3d 424 [1st Dept 2026] ).

On appeal, East End does not address its cross-claim for negligence and common-law indemnification.  In any event, the claim would be barred for the same reasons Supreme Court found the owner defendants' third-party claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against Top Notch to be barred — namely, that plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits in connection with his claimed injuries, and the injuries did not meet the statutory definition of “grave injury” under the Workers' Compensation Law.

We have considered Top Notch's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.