Warboys v. SHI-III Briarcliff Reit, LLC

Background

Merrill Warboys alleged that he slipped on black ice on January 18, 2018, after delivering prefabricated wall panels to a construction site in Briarcliff Manor, New York. The site was owned by SHI-III Briarcliff Reit, LLC and Briarcliff Manor Investors, LLC. Andron Construction Corp. was the general contractor, Vista Construction & Landscape Contractors, Inc. performed snow- and-ice-removal work, and American Panel Tec/NY LLC supplied the wall panels. Kathryn Warboys asserted a loss-of-consortium claim.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under New York Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6), common-law negligence, unspecified regulatory provisions, and loss of consortium. The defendants and American Panel also asserted various claims for contractual indemnity, common-law indemnity, contribution, breach of contract or warranty, negligence, and failure to procure insurance.

The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Rulings on the Plaintiffs’ Claims

The court granted summary judgment for the Briarcliff LLCs on the plaintiffs’ New York Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The court held that the plaintiffs had not identified evidence that anyone associated with those entities had actual or constructive notice—that is, direct knowledge or legally sufficient reason to know—of the specific black-ice condition. General knowledge that snow or ice might create slippery conditions was insufficient.

The court denied summary judgment for Andron on the plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims. Evidence that Andron personnel were at the site before the incident, directed the plaintiff where to park, monitored site safety, and may have observed ice removal created factual disputes about whether Andron knew about the hazard. The court also found factual disputes about whether a storm was still in progress or whether enough time had passed for snow and ice removal.

The court denied summary judgment for Vista on the plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims. Although a snow-removal contractor generally does not owe a duty to a person who was not a party to its contract merely because it agreed to remove snow, the plaintiffs raised a factual dispute under an exception for a contractor whose work creates or increases a dangerous condition. Evidence that Vista piled snow near the parking area supported the possibility that melting and refreezing snow helped create the black ice.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241(6) claims after the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew them. It also granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ second cause of action, involving unspecified alleged violations of state, county, village, and federal workplace regulations, because the plaintiffs had abandoned those claims and had not identified the specific provisions allegedly violated.

The court granted summary judgment for the Briarcliff LLCs on Kathryn Warboys’s loss-of-consortium claim because that claim depended on Merrill Warboys’s underlying claims against those entities. The loss-of-consortium claims against Andron and Vista were not dismissed because the underlying claims against those defendants remained.

Contract and Related Claims

The court denied both Andron’s and Vista’s requests for summary judgment on Andron’s contractual-indemnity claim against Vista. The parties disputed whether a written agreement containing an indemnity provision was in effect on the date of the incident. The court also denied both sides’ requests for summary judgment on common-law indemnity because factual disputes remained about whether Andron, Vista, or both were negligent. Andron’s claims against Vista for breach of contract and warranty concerning insurance were likewise not resolved on summary judgment: the parties disputed whether the relevant contract was in effect, and Vista had not shown that it obtained the required insurance if the contract applied.

The court granted Andron’s motion to dismiss Vista’s contractual-indemnity crossclaim. Vista identified no evidence that Andron agreed to indemnify Vista. The court denied Andron’s motion on Vista’s common-law-indemnity claim because a jury could find that Vista was not negligent and that Andron’s conduct contributed to the injury.

The court granted American Panel summary judgment on Andron’s claims for contractual indemnity, common-law indemnity, contribution, and negligence. The contractual-indemnity provision was void in its entirety under New York General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 because it was broad enough to require indemnification for the indemnitee’s own negligence, and its phrase limiting indemnity to the fullest extent of the law was not sufficient to cure that defect. The remaining claims failed because Andron could not show that American Panel owed the plaintiff a duty of care, exercised supervisory control over his work, created the black-ice condition, or assumed responsibility for the entire worksite.

The court dismissed Andron’s claim that American Panel failed to procure and maintain liability insurance because Andron did not respond to American Panel’s request for dismissal; the court deemed the claim abandoned. The court also dismissed American Panel’s counterclaims against Andron for contractual indemnity, common-law indemnity, and contribution without prejudice. The contractual-indemnity claim lacked a supporting contract provision, and the other claims depended on a judgment against American Panel, which was no longer possible after the plaintiffs’ claims against American Panel were dismissed.

Disposition

Andron’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. Vista’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. American Panel’s motion was granted in all respects, and American Panel was dismissed from the case. The plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and loss-of-consortium claims against Andron and Vista were not dismissed, and the identified indemnity and contract disputes involving Andron and Vista remained unresolved. The court directed the clerk to terminate the three motions and scheduled a pretrial conference.