Robbins v. Goldman Sachs Headquarters, LLCRobbins v. Goldman Sachs Headquarters, LLC
In this Labor Law case, questions of fact exist as to whether insufficient lighting was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident (see Capuano v Tishman Constr. Corp., 98 AD3d 848 [1st Dept 2012]; Murphy v Columbia Univ., 4 AD3d 200 [1st Dept 2004]). Zwicker Electric Co. (Zwicker) installed and maintained the temporary lighting in the area of plaintiff’s accident, and
The contract between defendants and Zwicker obligates Zwicker to indemnify defendants from claims “arising out of or resulting from the performance of Contractor’s Work, or the Contractor’s operations” or, inter alia, for claims caused by Zwicker’s “willful or negligent act[s] or failures to act.” The lighting provided by Zwicker was clearly a tool supplied for the other contractors to perform their work, and thus the accident arose out of Zwicker’s work (see Balbuena v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 49 AD3d 374 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 14 NY3d 709 [2010]). Moreover, the questions of fact concerning Zwicker’s negligence would also trigger the indemnity provision. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Saxe, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ. [Prior Case History: 33 Misc 3d 1216(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 51948(U).]