DANIEL ROBBINS PLAINTIFFS, v. GOLDMAN SACHS HEADQUARTERS, LLC def-res

8945. DANIEL ROBBINS PLAINTIFFS, v. GOLDMAN SACHS HEADQUARTERS, LLC def-res — GOLDMAN SACHS HEADQUARTERS, LLC Third-Party plf-res, v. ZWICKER ELECTRIC CO., INC., Third-Party def-ap — Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden LLP, White Plains (Gregory Saracino of counsel), for ap — Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Ellyn B. Wilder of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered September 15, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied third-party defendant Zwicker Electric Co.’s motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the third-party claims of defendants Goldman Sachs Headquarters, LLC and Tishman Construction Corp. for contractual indemnity, common law indemnity, and contribution, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

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 both plaintiff and his foreman testified that it was very dark. While the sheet of metal that had been covering a large opening in the floor bore the words “danger” and “hole,” neither worker observed the writing, allegedly because of inadequate lighting, and both were unaware that the metal was covering a hole until they moved it, causing plaintiff to fall into the hole.