Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Feb 13, 2007

Versions:37 A.D.3d 510

829 N.Y.S.2d 691

inner_thought The user wants to convert a legal document from a set of images and OCR text into clean, semantic HTML. * Case 1: Starts on page 510. It‘s an ongoing opinion. The first line is “to a long-term care facility...“. This is partial content from a previous case. * Case 2: Starts on page 510 with “Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant...“. * Case 3: Starts on page 513 with “Sabato Catucci et al., Respondents, v Greenwich Insurance Company, Appellant.” The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Let‘s look at the structure. Case 1 (Carrasquillo v Zabarsky? based on the text) is ending on page 510. I should skip this partial content. Case 2 (Castilla v K.A.B. Realty) starts at the bottom of page 510 and continues through pages 511, 512, and the top of 513. Case 3 (Catucci v Greenwich Insurance) starts at the middle of page 513 and continues. Which is the “MAIN opinion“? Usually, the first complete opinion encountered. Case 2 is complete. It has the caption: “Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. [829 NYS2d 691]—” Case 3 also has a caption. I will convert the first complete opinion, which is Case 2 (Castilla v K.A.B. Realty). * **Case Name:** Jose Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc. * **Short Name:** Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc. (Wait, Bluebook says omit “Inc.” in some contexts but usually keep it for the first party if it‘s the only name. For short names, typically “Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty“.) * **Docket:** Unknown from the header, but the order date is September 6, 2005. The court is Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.). Wait, this is an appellate decision (likely Appellate Division, Second Department given the citation style AD3d and names like Schmidt, J.P.). * **Citation:** 829 NYS2d 691. * **Court:** N.Y. App. Div. (based on AD3d citations and formatting). * **Date:** Not explicitly stated in a single date line for the appellate decision, but the lower court order is 2005. Looking at the volume (829 NYS2d), this is likely 2007 or late 2006. Actually, let‘s look at the judges: Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Fisher, Dickerson... Spolzino, Ritter, Covello, Balkin. These are AD2nd Dept judges. * **Case 2 Judges:** Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ. - Page 510: Caption starts. - Page 511: Procedural history and “Ordered” section. - Page 512: Facts and Law. - Page 513: Conclusion and Signature block. * `midpage-case-name`: Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. * `shortName`: Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc. * `midpage-citation`: 829 NYS2d 691 * `midpage-court`: N.Y. App. Div. Text on page 510: “Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. [829 NYS2d 691]—” Page 511 starts with: “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, K.A.B. Realty, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated September 6, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification and, in effect, for damages for breach of contract.” “Ordered that the order is modified...” Text on page 512: “In support of those branches of its motion...” “However, KAB‘s third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification was not similarly barred.” Text on page 513: “...in the happening of the plaintiff‘s accident... Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.” - *Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners*, 76 NY2d 172 [1990] -> `midpage-case` - *Damiani v Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.*, 23 AD3d 329 [2005] -> `midpage-case` - *Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.*, 78 NY2d 553 [1991] -> `midpage-case` - *Rodrigues v N & S Bldg. Contrs., Inc.*, 5 NY3d 427 [2005] -> `midpage-case` - *Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc.*, 4 NY3d 363 [2005] -> `midpage-case` - *Murphy v Longview Owners, Inc.*, 13 AD3d 346 [2004] -> `midpage-case` - *Davis v All State Assoc.*, 23 AD3d 607 [2005] -> `midpage-case` - *McArthur v Muhammad*, 27 AD3d 532 [2006] -> `midpage-case` - *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.*, 64 NY2d 851 [1985] -> `midpage-case` - Workers’ Compensation Law -> `midpage-law` jurisdiction=“NY” - Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6] -> `midpage-law` - General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) -> `midpage-law` - Labor Law -> `midpage-law` The document starts with a partial opinion (Carrasquillo). I must skip that and start with “Jose Castilla...“. Wait, I need the date. The citation is 829 NYS2d 691. Let me check the year for 829 NYS2d. It‘s 2007. `shortName`: Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc. `court`: N.Y. App. Div. Let‘s double-check the OCR and manual review of the images. Page 510: Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. [829 NYS2d 691]— Page 511: “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, K.A.B. Realty, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated September 6, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification and, in effect, for damages for breach of contract.” “Ordered that the order is modified...” “The plaintiff allegedly was injured by a dangerous and defective electric saw...” Page 512: “...other things, that its liability, if any, was wholly vicarious. In opposition, Marin argued...” “In support of those branches of its motion...” “However, KAB’s third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification was not similarly barred.” Page 513: “...in the happening of the plaintiff’s accident... Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.” Then there is a black block and a new case starts: Sabato Catucci. I stop before the Catucci case. One detail: page markers. Page 510 contains the start of the caption. Page 511 starts with “In an action...“. Page 512 starts with “other things...“. Page 513 starts with “in the happening...“. Wait, look at page 512 OCR: “In support of those branches of its motion...“. The previous page (511) ended with “...arguing, among“. So “other things” is the first word on page 512. Page 513 starts with “in the happening...“. Let‘s refine citations. *Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners*, 76 NY2d 172 [1990] `case=“Brown v. Two Exch. Plaza Partners” cite=“76 NY2d 172” court=“N.Y.” date=“1990“` *Damiani v Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.*, 23 AD3d 329 [2005] `case=“Damiani v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.” cite=“23 AD3d 329” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2005“` Wait, standard Bluebook for NY appellate division is “N.Y. App. Div.“. Laws: Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6] -> `jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11“` Wait, range rule says first section. So `cite=“N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11“`. General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1) -> `jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-322.1(1)“` Labor Law -> `jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Labor Law“` Let‘s check for “id” and “short” forms. “see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra” `cite=“N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11“` `case=“Thompson” court=“N.Y.” type=“supra“` “McArthur v Muhammad, supra” `case=“McArthur” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” type=“supra“` Start of the doc: Skip the Carrasquillo text. Case caption for Castilla. One more thing: The images show the case number/metadata might be missing at the top because of the black redaction bar. I will omit `midpage-docket` if not present. The date isn‘t explicitly on the page for the AD decision, usually, it‘s at the top of the page or start of the term. I‘ll omit it or use the year from the cite if I‘m certain. The cite is [829 NYS2d 691]. This volume corresponds to cases from early 2007. Let‘s look at the “Jose Castilla” block. The text on page 510 for Case 2 is just the caption and citation. The text for Case 2 continues on page 511. Wait, on page 511 there is a large black redaction block at the top. The text “In an action to recover...” starts after it. Actually, let‘s verify if the Jose Castilla caption on page 510 belongs to the text on 511. Yes, the text on 511 describes an appeal from an order in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, involving K.A.B. Realty and Marin Construction. This matches the caption on page 510. Final check on page markers: The caption is on 510. Page 511 starts. Page 512 starts at “other things“. Page 513 starts at “in the happening“. Let‘s do this. Case name metadata: `shortName=“Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc.“` Full name: `Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.` One check on short names: “Marin Construction Corp.” is a third party. Usually, only the first party vs first opposing party are in the short name. `Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc.` Wait, the prompt says: “If input is not a legal opinion, return only: null“. This is a legal opinion. “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Okay. One detail: “Schmidt, J.P, Crane, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.” This is at the end of the *previous* case (Carrasquillo). The signature for Castilla is on page 513: “Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.” Let‘s get the text for Castilla. Page 510: Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. [829 NYS2d 691]— Page 511: In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, K.A.B. Realty, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated September 6, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification and, in effect, for damages for breach of contract. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion of the defendant and third-party plaintiff which was for summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (2) by adding a provision thereto, upon searching the record, awarding the third-party defendant summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for common-law indemnification; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The plaintiff allegedly was injured by a dangerous and defective electric saw while working on a construction and renovation project in a building owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff K.A.B. Realty, Inc. (hereinafter KAB). He commenced this action against KAB to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging negligence and violations of the Labor Law. KAB commenced a third-party action against Marin Construction Corp. (hereinafter Marin), with whom it had entered into a written contract to perform the work, seeking common-law and contractual indemnification, and, in effect, damages for Marin’s alleged breach of its contractual obligation to obtain insurance. After significant disclosure, KAB moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on its third-party complaint, arguing, among Page 512: other things, that its liability, if any, was wholly vicarious. In opposition, Marin argued, inter alia, that the plaintiff was its special employee and, therefore, a cause of action for common-law indemnification was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Further, Marin asserted, the indemnity clause of the contract between it and KAB, even if otherwise enforceable, purported to require Marin to indemnify KAB for KAB’s own negligence and, therefore, was void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1). The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied those branches of KAB’s motion which were for summary judgment on its third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification, finding issues of fact. We modify. In support of those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on its third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification, KAB demonstrated, prima facie, that it was neither negligent in the happening of the accident, nor had the authority to supervise, direct, or control the manner of the work that caused the injury (see Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 NY2d 172 [1990]; Damiani v Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 23 AD3d 329 [2005]). In opposition, Marin failed to raise a triable issue of fact. However, in its opposition papers, Marin did demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff was its special employee at the time of the accident and, therefore, that Marin was the plaintiffs employer within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]). In reply to Marin’s showing, KAB failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court should have searched the record, and awarded Marin summary judgment dismissing KAB’s third-party cause of action for common-law indemnification, as that cause of action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra). However, KAB’s third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification was not similarly barred. The exclusivity provisions of section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law do not vitiate a provision in a written contract, entered into prior to the accident or occurrence, by which an employer expressly agrees to provide indemnification (see Rodrigues v N & S Bldg. Contrs., Inc., 5 NY3d 427 [2005]; Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc., 4 NY3d 363 [2005]; Murphy v Longview Owners, Inc., 13 AD3d 346 [2004]). Further, in light of KAB’s unrebutted prima facie demonstration, inter alia, that it was not negligent Page 513: in the happening of the plaintiff’s accident, General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 is inapplicable (see Davis v All State Assoc., 23 AD3d 607 [2005]). Thus, KAB was entitled to summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. However, in support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party cause of action, in effect, to recover damages for breach of contract, KAB failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see McArthur v Muhammad, 27 AD3d 532 [2006]). Thus, that branch of the motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; McArthur v Muhammad, supra). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur. Citations check: `cite=“N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11“` for “Workers’ Compensation Law” in general text? Yes, usually. `cite=“N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-322.1(1)“` for “General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1)“. `cite=“N.Y. Labor Law“` for “Labor Law“. Note on “supra“: `McArthur v Muhammad, supra` -> `case=“McArthur” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” type=“supra“`. Case names: *Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners* -> `cite=“76 NY2d 172“` *Damiani v Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.* -> `cite=“23 AD3d 329“` *Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp.* -> `cite=“78 NY2d 553“` *Rodrigues v N & S Bldg. Contrs., Inc.* -> `cite=“5 NY3d 427“` *Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc.* -> `cite=“4 NY3d 363“` *Murphy v Longview Owners, Inc.* -> `cite=“13 AD3d 346“` *Davis v All State Assoc.* -> `cite=“23 AD3d 607“` *McArthur v Muhammad* -> `cite=“27 AD3d 532“` *Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr.* -> `cite=“64 NY2d 851“` One tricky thing: The OCR says “[829NYS2d691]“. The image shows “[829 NYS2d 691]“. I will use the image‘s spacing. Wait, page 513 starts with “in the happening of the plaintiffs accident“. OCR says “plaintiffs“. Image shows “plaintiff‘s“. OCR is often missing apostrophes or misreading them. I‘ll fix based on images. “plaintiffs employer” -> “plaintiff‘s employer” “Marin’s alleged breach” -> “Marin‘s alleged breach” Rejoining hyphens: “hap-\npening” -> “happening” “renova-\ntion” -> “renovation” “demon-\nstrated” -> “demonstrated” “provi-\nsions” -> “provisions” “indemni-\nfication” -> “indemnification” Let‘s check the start of Case 2 on page 510 again. “Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. [829 NYS2d 691]—” There is a square bullet before “Jose“. I‘ll include it or ignore as styling. The prompt says preserve content exactly. I‘ll use a block element for the caption. Wait, the instructions say: “Case Information” in `

` “Pre-Opinion Content” “Opinion Body” I‘ll put the caption and citation in the Case Info. Case name: Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Short name: Castilla v. K.A.B. Realty, Inc. Citation: 829 NYS2d 691 Court: N.Y. App. Div. (Appellate Division, Second Department) Wait, the prompt example shows the citation in the body as well if it‘s there. Actually, the caption on 510 is essentially the start of the document for this case. One more check on the `Ordered` section. It starts on page 511. Let‘s double check “common-law“. The hyphen is usually kept. “prima facie” - keep. Wait, the prompt says “Convert the provided legal document... while preserving all content exactly.” If I skip the first case, am I preserving “all content“? “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” Yes, skip Carrasquillo. Is Castilla the “Main” opinion? It‘s a full opinion. Catucci is also a full opinion. Usually “MAIN” implies the primary focus or first complete one. I‘ll provide Castilla. Wait, looking at the layout, this is a law reporter. It contains multiple cases. I will treat the document as the set of pages provided, and focus on the first complete opinion as the instruction suggests. Let‘s look at the Catucci case on 513. It is also complete. But Castilla comes first. Case Info for Castilla: Name: Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Docket: None found. Court: N.Y. App. Div. Citation: 829 NYS2d 691 Wait, looking at the Judges “Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ.” - these are indeed AD2, around 2007. One detail: “Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.” This is on page 510. It belongs to the *previous* case (Carrasquillo v. Zabarsky). I must skip it. So, opinion starts with the Jose Castilla caption on page 510. Wait, I need the date for the `midpage-date` attribute. For 829 NYS2d 691, the date of decision is March 13, 2007. Should I include it if it‘s not on the page? “Preserve all content exactly” vs “Extract metadata here... Omit elements without data“. Since it‘s not on the page, I should probably omit `date` or use the year if I‘m certain. I‘ll omit to be safe, or just use `2007`. Actually, the instructions say “Extract metadata here... preserve formatting exactly“. If it‘s not there, omit it. Wait, the caption block on 510: “■ Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. [829 NYS2d 691]—” This is the header. Body text starts on 511: “In an action to recover damages for personal injuries...” Let‘s structure the HTML. ```html

Actually, I should put the `` before any content on that page. If the caption is metadata and I don‘t repeat it, then 510 is essentially empty except for the metadata. Actually, the caption *is* content. I should probably include it if it‘s not purely metadata (like a header/footer). But the instructions say “Case caption blocks (if already fully extracted to Case Information) — do not repeat... in the body“. So I won‘t repeat it. Let‘s start the body with page 511. Wait, 511 starts with a huge redaction bar. The text on 511: “In an action to recover...” I‘ll start with 511. Wait, what about the “Ordered” paragraph? It‘s a standard AD section. I will place it in the body. One check: “Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.” Is this for Case 1 or Case 2? Looking at page 510: Text about Anthony Carrasquillo... “Accordingly, action No. 2 was not time-barred.” “The defendant‘s remaining contentions are without merit.” “Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.” This is definitely Case 1. Then a square bullet. “Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc...” This is the start of Case 2. So my conversion for Case 2 starts with that caption. ```html

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, K.A.B. Realty, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated September 6, 2005, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification and, in effect, for damages for breach of contract.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, (1) by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion of the defendant and third-party plaintiff which was for summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (2) by adding a provision thereto, upon searching the record, awarding the third-party defendant summary judgment dismissing the third-party cause of action for common-law indemnification; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

... ``` Wait, where do I put the ``? If the caption is on 510, but I‘m putting it in metadata, and skipping the rest of 510 (which belongs to Carrasquillo), then the first content after Case Info is on 511. Actually, the caption is on 510. Even if extracted to metadata, the page 510 marker should represent where the content for this case started. However, the “Case Information” block replaces the caption. I will follow the structure: `

` `` (since the only content on 510 for this case is the caption, and caption is in Case Info). Wait, the OCR for page 510 ends with Case 2 caption. The text on page 511 is the start of the opinion body. I‘ll check if there‘s any prefatory text on 511 before the “In an action...” paragraph. No, just a black box. Wait, I should check the citation mapping for `midpage-case`. “see Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 NY2d 172 [1990]” The [1990] is the date. NY reporter style uses brackets for years sometimes, or parens. I‘ll preserve source punctuation inside the tag. Actually, instructions say: `Smith v. Jones, 262 F.3d 305, 320 (4th Cir. 2001)`. The AD reporter style: `76 NY2d 172 [1990]`. I will put the year inside the date attribute. `jurisdiction=“NY“` `cite=“N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11“` for “Workers’ Compensation Law“. `cite=“N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11“` for “Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]“. (Note: instructions say use first section). `cite=“N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-322.1“` for “General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1)“. `cite=“N.Y. Labor Law“` for “Labor Law“. One detail: “hereinafter KAB“. This is a reference. Keep outside tag. “hereinafter Marin” - keep outside. Checking page 512 for word boundaries on page break. 511 ends: “arguing, among” 512 starts: “other things” Perfect. Checking page 513 for word boundaries. 512 ends: “that it was not negligent” 513 starts: “in the happening” Perfect. Signature block on page 513: ```html

Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

``` Wait, standard signature block or just the list of judges? The instructions say “preserve typed name and title“. Here it‘s a concurrence line. I‘ll wrap it in `midpage-signature` if it‘s the end of the opinion. Let‘s review the judges’ list. “Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.” - This is for the previous case. “Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.” - This is for Castilla. Wait, look at the bottom of page 513. A new case starts: “Sabato Catucci...“. So the Castilla case ends with the Spolzino line. One more thing: In the body, there are citations like: `...within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]).` I‘ll wrap `Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]` in `midpage-case`. One more cite: `(see Rodrigues v N & S Bldg. Contrs., Inc., 5 NY3d 427 [2005]; Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc., 4 NY3d 363 [2005]; Murphy v Longview Owners, Inc., 13 AD3d 346 [2004])`. Three separate tags. Final check on apostrophes. Image 511: “Marin‘s alleged breach” - apostrophe is a curly one in print, I use straight: “Marin‘s“. “plaintiff‘s motion” (in the Carrasquillo section, which I skip). “KAB‘s third-party” (in Castilla section). OCR missed several apostrophes. I will fix them using the images. Page 512: “KAB‘s third-party” (twice). “plaintiff‘s employer” (once). Wait, “plaintiffs employer” in OCR. I will fix to “plaintiff‘s employer” if image shows it. (Yes, image shows “plaintiff‘s“). Page 513: “plaintiff‘s accident“. OCR “plaintiffs“. Image “plaintiff‘s“. Wait, look at the citation `[829NYS2d691]`. Image 510 shows space: `[829 NYS2d 691]`. I will use spaces. One more check on the `Ordered` block. “(1) by deleting... (2) by adding...” I‘ll keep this as one paragraph as it appears on page 511. Let‘s do the conversion. ```html

The plaintiff allegedly was injured by a dangerous and defective electric saw while working on a construction and renovation project in a building owned by the defendant third-party plaintiff K.A.B. Realty, Inc. (hereinafter KAB). He commenced this action against KAB to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging negligence and violations of the Labor Law. KAB commenced a third-party action against Marin Construction Corp. (hereinafter Marin), with whom it had entered into a written contract to perform the work, seeking common-law and contractual indemnification, and, in effect, damages for Marin‘s alleged breach of its contractual obligation to obtain insurance. After significant disclosure, KAB moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on its third-party complaint, arguing, among other things, that its liability, if any, was wholly vicarious. In opposition, Marin argued, inter alia, that the plaintiff was its special employee and, therefore, a cause of action for common-law indemnification was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Further, Marin asserted, the indemnity clause of the contract between it and KAB, even if otherwise enforceable, purported to require Marin to indemnify KAB for KAB‘s own negligence and, therefore, was void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1). The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied those branches of KAB‘s motion which were for summary judgment on its third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification, finding issues of fact. We modify.

In support of those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment on its third-party causes of action for common-law and contractual indemnification, KAB demonstrated, prima facie, that it was neither negligent in the happening of the accident, nor had the authority to supervise, direct, or control the manner of the work that caused the injury (see Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 NY2d 172 [1990]; Damiani v Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 23 AD3d 329 [2005]). In opposition, Marin failed to raise a triable issue of fact. However, in its opposition papers, Marin did demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff was its special employee at the time of the accident and, therefore, that Marin was the plaintiff‘s employer within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., 78 NY2d 553 [1991]). In reply to Marin‘s showing, KAB failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the Supreme Court should have searched the record, and awarded Marin summary judgment dismissing KAB‘s third-party cause of action for common-law indemnification, as that cause of action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law (see Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]; Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra).

However, KAB‘s third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification was not similarly barred. The exclusivity provisions of section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law do not vitiate a provision in a written contract, entered into prior to the accident or occurrence, by which an employer expressly agrees to provide indemnification (see Rodrigues v N & S Bldg. Contrs., Inc., 5 NY3d 427 [2005]; Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc., 4 NY3d 363 [2005]; Murphy v Longview Owners, Inc., 13 AD3d 346 [2004]). Further, in light of KAB‘s unrebutted prima facie demonstration, inter alia, that it was not negligent in the happening of the plaintiff‘s accident, General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 is inapplicable (see Davis v All State Assoc., 23 AD3d 607 [2005]). Thus, KAB was entitled to summary judgment on its third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification.

However, in support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on its third-party cause of action, in effect, to recover damages for breach of contract, KAB failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see McArthur v Muhammad, 27 AD3d 532 [2006]). Thus, that branch of the motion was properly denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; McArthur v Muhammad, supra).

Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

``` Reviewing the tags: - `midpage-ps` placement: At the bottom of page 511 it ends “arguing, among“. Page 512 starts “other things“. I‘ll put `` before “other things“. - `midpage-ps n=“513“/>` before “in the happening“. One citation check: `Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11, 29 [6]` I used `jurisdiction=“NY” cite=“N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11“`. The instruction says normalize and use first section for range. Correct. One check on “supra” tags: `Thompson v Grumman Aerospace Corp., supra` `McArthur v Muhammad, supra` Instructions say: `Include type=“short“, omit date. Infer starting page from preceding full citation` for short form. For `supra`: `type=“supra“`. Omit `date`. Include `case` and `court`. Thompson: `case=“Thompson v. Grumman Aerospace Corp.” court=“N.Y.” type=“supra“` (Wait, first party only? `case=“Thompson“`). Example shows: ``. I‘ll use `case=“Thompson” court=“N.Y.“` and `case=“McArthur” court=“N.Y. App. Div.“`. One check on `midpage-law jurisdiction`. `Workers’ Compensation Law` -> `N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 11` `General Obligations Law § 5-322.1` -> `N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-322.1` `Labor Law` -> `N.Y. Labor Law` NY is correct for these. One check on quotes. Straight quotes only. Correct. Wait, looking at the image on page 510, the caption has a square bullet `■`. “■ Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, ...” I will ignore the bullet as styling or include it as text. The prompt says “preserve all content exactly“. I‘ll skip it as it‘s a structural bullet/decoration common in reporters. Actually, I won‘t put the caption in the body anyway because it‘s in Case Info. One check on the citation `[829 NYS2d 691]`. This is part of the caption block. The end of page 510 has a long line `—`. This is also styling. Final check on apostrophes. Image 511: “defendant‘s“, “plaintiff‘s“, “plaintiff‘s“. Image 512: “KAB‘s“, “Marin‘s“, “Marin‘s“, “plaintiff‘s“. Image 513: “plaintiff‘s“, “defendant‘s“. Wait, the Castilla opinion ends on 513 with concurrence. Below it is a new case “Sabato Catucci...“. I will end my output after the Castilla concurrence. One last look at OCR vs Image. OCR 512: “seeRodrigues” -> Image: “see Rodrigues“. Correct. OCR 513: “seeMcArthur” -> Image: “see McArthur“. Correct. OCR 513: “[829NYS2d691]” -> Image: “[829 NYS2d 691]“. (This was Case 2 caption on 510, but OCR repeated it or moved it. Image 510 has it). I‘m ready. ```html

Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.

``` One last check: `General Obligations Law § 5-322.1` in the first paragraph doesn‘t have the `(1)` pinpoint in the second mention. I‘ll use the cite as is. Wait, looking at 512, “General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 (1)“. And on 513, “General Obligations Law § 5-322.1“. I‘ll use the specific cite for each. Wait, I need to check the exact wording for the ordered section again. “Ordered that the order is modified, on the law...” Everything looks good. One small detail: “see Rodrigues v N & S Bldg. Contrs., Inc.” The OCR has “seeRodrigues“. I‘ll put a space. Correct. One final check: Case citation for Castilla in metadata. `Jose Castilla, Plaintiff, v K.A.B. Realty, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Marin Construction Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.` This matches the caption block on 510. One more thing. The start of page 511 text: “In an action to recover...“. Does anything come before it on page 511? There is a header “511” and a large black block. I‘ll start with the text. Wait, the instructions say “Extract metadata here, don‘t repeat in body“. Does the “Jose Castilla” block count as Case Information? Yes. So I won‘t put it in the body. But page 510 contains it. If I omit it from the body, and the Carrasquillo text is skipped, then the body effectively begins on 511. I will place the `` marker at the very beginning of the body content. Wait, looking at the multi-opinion documents rule: “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.” If the caption is on 510, and it‘s Case Information, then the first page of the opinion is 510. Even if the caption isn‘t in the body, the marker should be there to show page sequence. Actually, if there is no text on 510 *after* the caption that belongs to Castilla, then I just start with 511. On 510, after the Castilla caption, there‘s just a horizontal line. So text definitely starts on 511. Wait, let‘s look at the Carrasquillo case (ending on 510). It ends with “...action No. 2 was not time-barred. The defendant‘s remaining contentions... concur.” Then Castilla starts. I‘ll skip Carrasquillo entirely. The Castilla opinion starts with the caption on 510. I‘ll put the `midpage-ps` marker before the text on 511. Wait, I should check the court name in metadata. The court is the Appellate Division, Second Department. The reporter citation AD3d and AD2nd in OCR confirm this. Done.