9248. MARY IMBRIALE, ETC., plf-res, v. RICHTER & RATNER CONTRACTING CORP. def-ap, EMPIRE PROJECTS, INC., def — RICHTER & RATNER CONTRACTING CORP. Third-Party plf-ap, v. COMPETITION ARCHITECTURAL METALS, INC., Third-Party def-res — [AND ANOTHER THIRD-PARTY ACTION] Malapero & Prisco, New York (Frank J. Lombardo of counsel), for ap — Rappaport Glass Levine & Zullo, LLP, Hauppauge (Michael G. Glass of counsel), for Mary Imbriale, res — Milber Makris Plousadis & Seiden, LLP, White Plains (James K. Baden of counsel), for Competition Architectural Metals, Inc., res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered June 8, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the motion by defendants/third party plaintiffs Richter & Ratner Contracting Corp. (R&R), Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY), 24 West 57th APF, LLC, and 24 West 57th Street Realty, LLC (collectively, 24 West 57th) to renew plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law §240(1), granted plaintiff’s motion to sever the third party complaint from the main action, and denied defendants/ third party plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their claims for common-law and contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Competition Architectural Metals, Inc. (Competition), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant ATNY and 24 West 57th summary judgment on their third-party claim for common law indemnification, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The alleged new facts offered by defendants in support of renewal of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to liability under Labor Law §240(1) do not change the prior determination (see CPLR 2221[e][2]). Defendants argued that the decedent’s tool bag, which until recently had been in the decedent’s wife’s possession, contained suction cups that could have anchored the top of the decedent’s ladder to the glass wall against which the otherwise unsecured ladder had been leaning before it slid and collapsed. However, they failed to adduce any evidence that the decedent knew that the suction cups could be used to anchor the top of the ladder to the glass or that he had been directed or knew he was expected to use the suction cups for that purpose (see Gallagher v. New York Post, 14 NY3d 83, 88-89 [2010]; Pietrowski v. ARE-East Riv. Science Park, LLC, 86 AD3d 467 [1st Dept 2011]; Paz v. City of New York, 85 AD3d 519 [1st Dept 2011]).
