The following papers numbered E131 to E245 read on these motions by defendant, Welsbach Electric Corp. (Welsbach) (Seq. 8); by defendant, LJ Coppola, Inc.(LJ Coppola) (Seq. 9); by defendants, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. and CH2M Hill NY, Inc., sued here as CH2M Hill, Inc. (MP/CH2M) (Seq. 10); and by third-party defendants, Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., E.C.C.O. III Enterprises, Inc., J. F. White Contracting Company, and Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc./E.C.C.O. III Enterprises, Inc./J. F. White Contracting Company, a JV d/b/a Sew Construction (individually and combined as SEW) (Seq. 11), all seeking, among other things, summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s and third-party plaintiffs’ complaints, pursuant to CPLR 3212.Papers NumberedNotice of Motion-Affirmation — Exhibits E131-E199, E227, E229, E230Affirmation in Opposition — Exhibits E228, E231-E241, E 245Reply Affirmation E237-E238, E242-E244
*1 Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that the instant motions, all for, among other things, summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, are determined as follows: Plaintiff, a construction worker employed by third-party defendant, Skanska, one of the SEW joint venturers, allegedly sustained serious personal injuries while working at a construction site owned by New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The owner hired SEW, as general contractor; MP/CH2M, to provide construction management services at the job site; and, as required by New York General Municipal Law §101 (Wicks Law), Welsbach, as electrical contractor and LJ Coppola, as plumbing/HVAC contractor.Plaintiff alleges he was seriously injured when, as he attempted to step over a three-foot high concrete “form,” that he and co-workers had fabricated, onto the ground, he placed his right foot on a metal brace on the far side of the form, located “about half way down the form…put (his) left foot down (intending to step on the ground, and)…stepped right on the very end of a (wood) four-by-four, and twisted (his) ankle.” Plaintiff commenced this action alleging common law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§§200, 240 and 241, all alleging that the four-by-four piece of wood constituted a dangerous condition. Defendant, LJ Coppola, filed a cross claim against all other defendants alleging apportionment, contribution, and commonlaw and contractual indemnification, and against SEW for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. MP/CH2M filed a cross claim against defendants, Welsbach and LJ Coppola, alleging common-law indemnification and contribution. Welsbach filed a cross claim against defendants, MP/CH2M and LJ Coppola, sounding in common-law indemnification and contribution.Plaintiff discontinued this action against defendants, Arcadis U.S., Inc. and RTKL Associates, Inc., by stipulation, dated October 25, 2012.The court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is “to determine whether material factual issues exist, not to resolve such issues” (Lopez v. Beltre, 59 AD3d 683, 685 [2d Dept 2009]; Santiago v. Joyce, 127 AD3d 954 [2d Dept 2015]). As summary judgment is to be considered the procedural equivalent of a trial, “it must clearly appear that no material and triable issue of fact is presented…. This drastic remedy should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of such issues…or where the issue is ‘arguable’” [citations omitted] (Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 [1957]; see also Stukas v. Streiter, 83 AD3d 18 [2d Dept 2011]). Summary judgment “should not be granted where the facts are in dispute, where conflicting inferences may be drawn from the evidence, or where
