DECISION AND ORDER Motion sequence nos. 011 and 012 are consolidated for disposition herein. In motion sequence no. 011, defendant Century Elevator Maintenance Corporation (“Century”) moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross-claim for contractual indemnification made against it. In motion sequence no. 012, defendants Greenthal Management Corporation and Charles H. Greenthal Management Corp. (together, “Greenthal”) move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross-claim for contractual indemnification made against it. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This personal injury action arises out of an incident that occurred on January 17, 2012 when plaintiff Thomas M. Ravinsky fell while exiting a manually-operated service elevator at 910 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, a residential cooperative where he was employed as a deskman. By contract dated November 1, 1993 (the “Management Agreement”), non-party 910 Fifth Avenue Corporation (“910 Fifth”), the owner of the building where the accident occurred, retained Greenthal as its managing agent for the property. The portion of the Management Agreement describing Greenthal’s duties related to repairs and alterations reads, in part, “[k]eep the building properly maintained. Order routine repairs and incidental operations to the building and to any of the building subsystems including…[the] elevator,” although repairs costing more than $1,000 required approval from 910 Fifth (NYSCEF Doc No. 225, affirmation of Greenthal’s counsel, Exhibit “K” at 1). Greenthal was also authorized to “enter into contracts in [sic] behalf of [910 Fifth] for…elevator maintenance” with 910 Fifth’s prior approval (id). Although the Management Agreement expired by its terms on October 31, 1994 (id. at 6), it remained in effect through the date of the accident (NYSCEF Doc No. 213, Irwin B. Cohen [Cohen] aff, 3). In March 2007, Greenthal, as 910 Fifth’s agent, entered into a preventive maintenance agreement for Century to maintain the service elevator bearing identification no. 1P24518 at the building (the “Maintenance Agreement”) (NYSCEF Doc No. 204, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “I” at 1). Century agreed to “examine, lubricate and adjust” certain elevator components and to “replace the wearing parts” listed in the document (id.). The agreement provides that “CENTURY…is to be held harmless by the owner for any injuries…when said liability is established solely by referenc[e] to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and without proof of any negligent act or omission on the part of CENTURY…or its employees” (id. at 2). The agreement further reads as follows: “CENTURY…does not at any time assume possession or control of the equipment covered under the terms of this agreement and when not working on said equipment does not accept any responsibility for erratic leveling, door operations, shaft doors/top or side exit doors and their locking assemblies or for any situation that can not be revealed at the time of the regular service examination. It shall be the owners [sic] responsibility to notify CENTURY…of any erratic operation, accident or alteration affecting the performance of the elevators” (id.). Century serviced and maintained the two passenger elevators at the building under separate full-service contracts (NYSCEF Doc No. 203, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “H” [Timothy Fine ("Fine") tr] at 249]). Plaintiff testified that he had been employed by 910 Fifth since January 1998 (NYSCEF Doc No. 199, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “D” [plaintiff tr] at 21). There was a manually operated service elevator at the building, and Giuseppe Riccobono (“Riccobono”) was the dedicated service elevator operator (id. at 78-80). The accident occurred as plaintiff returned to work following a lunch break (id. at 88). Plaintiff testified that he entered the elevator without incident on the basement level (id.), but instead of stopping on the first floor, he and Riccobono rode to the fourth floor (id. at 89). When the elevator stopped, the doors opened automatically (id.). He and Riccobono talked for a few minutes while the elevator remained in a stationary position (id. at 103). Plaintiff testified that when he saw a resident, Gloria Gottlieb (“Gottlieb”), and her housekeeper, “Anna,” approach the trash and recycling bins near the elevator, he stepped out of the car to assist them (id. at 108). He stated, “when I was about to step out, there was a big loud noise in the elevator and it shook underneath me and my right leg went one way and my left leg went back and got stuck between the crack of the elevator” (id.). The noise sounded “like something dropped, a loud echoing sound in the shaft” (id. at 149). Plaintiff explained that the front of his left foot was caught in the two-inch “crack” between the elevator car and the landing (id. at 109). He did not know if the car misleveled because of the shaking (id. at 121-122), but after the car shook, “it felt like it went down” (id. at 199). The building superintendent, Robert Vuljaj (“Vuljaj”), arrived on the floor shortly after the accident (id. at 25 and 111). Plaintiff told Vuljaj “the floor’s wet” because he felt a “quarter-size [sic] of water penetrating through” a rear pocket of his trousers (id. at 111). Apart from that one wet spot, plaintiff did not see anything else that would have indicated that the landing floor was wet (id. at 182). Plaintiff acknowledged that the “C-3″ form for Workers’ Compensation benefits he had completed did not mention a problem with the elevator (id. at 114-115). The incident was captured on a surveillance camera positioned inside the elevator (id. at 128). Plaintiff admitted that he could not see the elevator rattling in the surveillance video or in the still images taken from that footage (id. at 153). Plaintiff maintained that the service elevator often malfunctioned, and that he personally experienced “banging, rattling, mis-leveling, [and] very heaving bouncing” at least 12 times in the year preceding the accident (id. at 177). He reported these issues to Vuljaj, who was responsible for deciding whether Century ought to be called (id. at 177-178). Other building employees and medical practice employees on the second floor complained two to three times a week about the elevator misleveling or jumping (id. at 199). Plaintiff explained that Century was called “[a] few times a week” (id. at 178). Riccobono, a porter at the building, testified that plaintiff entered the service elevator at the basement (NYSCEF Doc No. 209, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “N” [Riccobono tr] at 41). He was supposed to stop the car on the first floor, but he and plaintiff rode to the fourth floor instead because the call button for that floor was illuminated (id. at 41-42). Riccobono stated that the elevator was “temporarily shaky, [sic] it was a little nois[y] and then the door open[ed] before we went to the fourth floor, which usually would happen” (id. at 45). Plaintiff stepped forward out of the car but “[a]s soon as he step[ped] off on [sic] the elevator, he fell down” (id. at 47). The car jumped and shook momentarily (id. at 109-110), and there was “a nice little boom, crack, shaken [sic] and that’s it” (id. at 162). Riccobono stated that the car was misleveled between one to one and one-half inches (id. at 47 and 54). Riccobono explained that the service elevator misleveled every other day (id. at 54). He described recurring problems with the elevator prior to the accident, including misleveling and jumping before the car came to a complete stop (id. at 104-105 and 142). Riccobono was aware that Century was often called about misleveling because he had signed some of Century’s work tickets (id. at 152). As to the accident, Riccobono stated, “the elevator sometime[s] it just like was level and then it go[es] nnnnnnnn, you don’t even feel it goes [sic] up. That’s what happened” (id. at 60). Vuljaj testified that Greenthal was a “typical” property management company tasked with addressing complaints and overseeing projects (NYSCEF Doc No. 210, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “O” [Vuljaj tr] at 43). Greenthal answered to 910 Fifth’s board (the “Board”) (id.). Fine worked for Greenthal (id. at 31). Although he was not a Greenthal employee (id. at 29), Vuljaj reported to Fine, who in turn reported any building issues to the Board (id. at 58-59). Greenthal did not maintain an office at the building (id. at 83). Century serviced the subject elevator under an “oil and grease” contract, which meant “no parts included, no major replacement, no major work on it included, besides typical oil and grease and cleaning, clean the pit, clean the top of the car, bare minimum” (id. at 239). Vuljaj did not know which entity signed the Maintenance Agreement (id. at 47-48) or if Greenthal was authorized to hire or fire Century (id. at 53), but Greenthal would report to the Board and the Board would make any final decision (id. at 54 and 76). Vuljaj could not recall receiving any proposals from Century to perform extra-contractual work on the service elevator (id. at 78). Vuljaj maintained that the service elevator was in “[g]ood condition” prior to the January 2012 accident (id. at 107). He testified that he would contact Century on issues related to that elevator (id. at 49), although he could not recall any specific issues (id. at 62). Vuljaj could not recall if he had ever witnessed the elevator mislevel (id. at 95), or if he ever spoke to Fine or Century about a misleveling, incident before the accident (id. at 112 and 119). Vuljaj could not recall receiving any complaints from residents about the elevator (id. at 98), or from the employees at the medical practice about the elevator jumping or shaking (id. at 102-103). However, Vuljaj testified that he was sure the elevator shook “[j]ust like every other elevator” (id. at 107), and he was aware of other instances where the elevator “jumped” (id. at 107-108). He did not recall any conversations he may have had with Century about those issues (id. at 119). He did not know if Greenthal or Fine ever spoke to the Board about the elevator prior to the date of the accident (id. at 74). Vuljaj witnessed plaintiff’s accident in real time on the surveillance video screen in the lobby (id. at 123-124). Vuljaj stated, “I can’t really say that I saw the foot slip” (id. at 126), only that plaintiff fell “backwards” (id. at 132). He did not see if the floor was wet when he arrived at the scene, and he did not speak to plaintiff about the condition of the floor at that time (id. at 130-131). Vuljaj testified that after taking plaintiff to his office, plaintiff told him that “he slipped on the floor, [the] wet floor” (id. at 137). Plaintiff never told him the elevator had malfunctioned (id. at 266). Riccobono also confirmed that plaintiff had slipped on a wet floor (id. at 166-167). Vuljaj testified that he did not see the elevator move or shake in the video of the accident (id. at 166-167), and that the car appeared level with the adjacent landing (id. at 257). The elevator was not removed from service after the accident (id. at 226-227 and 260). Fine, a former executive or senior vice president at Greenthal, testified that Greenthal managed the building from 1993 to 2015 (NYSCEF Doc No. 203, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “H” [Fine tr] at 16-18). Greenthal’s duties included billing and collecting maintenance from 910 Fifth’s shareholders, meeting with the Board to discuss finances, operations, and capital improvement projects, responding to resident complaints, and processing payroll for workers at the building (id. at 17-19), all of whom were employed by 910 Fifth (id. at 75). Greenthal had the authority to perform repairs, but repairs costing more than $5,000 required Board approval (id. at 102). The Board had ultimate control over the building (id. at 64), including oversight over all building alterations (id. at 244). Fine testified that as 910 Fifth’s agent, he signed an “oil and grease” contract with Century for the service elevator (id. at 249). Oil and grease contracts involved a “lower level of maintenance” and limited which elevator components could be replaced (id. at 249). The Maintenance Agreement provides that the owner shall notify Century of any erratic operation (id. at 119), but in practice, it was the superintendent who contacted Century (id. at 120). Fine testified that he never saw the service elevator mislevel, and that he has never been trapped inside it (id. at 247-247). He could not recall receiving any complaints about misleveling or shaking from two doormen at the building (id. at 229-230), or from employees at the dermatology practice on the second floor (id. at 227). Fine expressed that misleveling and entrapments were serious issues (id. at 181-182), and that it was Greenthal’s responsibility to ensure that contractors working for the building performed their work properly (id. at 182-183). When presented with work tickets and dispatch calls for the elevator, including misleveling, entrapments, bouncing and jumping, Fine explained that he had no independent memory of those incidents (id. at 207). Fine testified that Century had presented 910 Fifth with written proposal no. 0611081 dated June 17, 2011 to furnish and install 22 items related to the service elevator (id. at 135). The proposal read, in part, that “[t]he above noted elevator has become increasingly troublesome and we highly recommend the following work” (NYSCEF Doc No. 205, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “J” at 1). The phrase “not accepted” is handwritten across the top of the proposal (id.). Fine testified that 910 Fifth elected to modernize the service elevator after the accident, but he could not recall when the project was completed (NYSCEF Doc No. 203, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “H” at 136-137). Richard Gladitz (“Gladitz”) was deposed on behalf of Century. Gladitz testified that he was a service manager and vice president at Century (NYSCEF Doc No. 207, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “L” [Gladitz tr] at 10). According to the Maintenance Agreement, Century agreed to lubricate and adjust the equipment on the service elevator on a routine or on an as needed basis and to participate in the one-, two- and five-year inspection tests (id. at 31-33). Gladitz was “not intimately familiar with the equipment in the building,” so he could not give specific details about the elevator’s leveling system (id. at 46). However, he stated that the equipment for the service elevator, including the leveling system, was original to the building (id. at 42 and 46), explaining that “[it] had basically outlived its useful life” (id. at 40). Gladitz testified that Century recorded its work on service tickets and computerized dispatch notes (id. at 43-44), and that he had reviewed the records related to the service elevator from June 2010. He noted two specific instances of misleveling reported on June 8, 2011 and June 10, 2011 (id. at 120 and 122). There was one reported incident on May 13, 2011 of the elevator shaking, bouncing and jumping, but the text on the dispatch note indicated that the incident involved a different elevator (id. at 117-118). Other dispatch reports recorded “trouble calls” without specifying whether the problem involved a leveling issue. Gladitz did not know what could have caused a loud bang inside the elevator or what could have caused a car with an automatic leveling system to move after having come to a complete stop on a floor (id. at 55-57). Gladitz, though, testified that the frequency of trouble calls was an indication that there was a serious problem with the elevator (id. at 124). Century was first notified of plaintiff’s accident thirteen months after it had occurred (id. at 146). Anthony Pennino (“Pennino”), a field supervisor at Century, testified that he was familiar with the elevators at the building having worked on them previously, although he could not recall if the service elevator was a manually-operated car (NYSCEF Doc No. 208, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “M” [Pennino tr] at 8-12). He explained that it is acceptable for an elevator to come within one-quarter inch to one-half inch of the adjacent floor, but each elevator is different (id. at 30-31). Pennino testified that multiple misleveling incidents do not indicate that the brake on an elevator is failing (id. at 42). He further testified that once an elevator is stopped and the doors are opened, the car should not move (id. at 113-114). Pennino testified that the elevator components referred to in Century’s work tickets, such as the brake, brake sleeve, commutator, brushers, generator and tape head, were all outside a passenger’s control (id. at 115-116). When asked whether the failure of the brake sleeve could cause the car to mislevel, Pennino responded, the “[b]rake sleeve could be anything. I mean, it depends. I didn’t see it” (id. at 56). He testified that a malfunctioning tape head at the top of the car can affect leveling and should not cause the car to move after coming to a stop (id. at 114-115). Pennino added, however, that “[a]nything is possible. It’s mechanical” (id. at 114). After reviewing the surveillance video of the incident, Pennino maintained that the car was level to the adjacent floor (NYSCEF Doc No. 208, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “M” at 138 and 145). In April 2012 after the subject accident, 910 Fifth executed a contract for Century to modernize the service elevator (NYSCEF Doc No. 206, affirmation of Century’s counsel, Exhibit “K” at 1). Plaintiff commenced this action sounding in negligence against Greenthal and Century by filing a summons and complaint on April 25, 2013. Greenthal and Century interposed answers to the complaint and asserted cross-claims against each other for indemnification. Greenthal has also asserted a cross-claim for breach of contract for Century’s failure to procure insurance. However, neither defendant moved on this ground. DISCUSSION It is well settled that the movant on a summary judgment motion “must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The motion must be supported by evidence in admissible form (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), and by the pleadings and other proof such as affidavits, depositions and written admissions (see CPLR 3212). The “facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” (Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Once the movant meets its burden, it is incumbent upon the non-moving party to establish the existence of material issues of fact (id., citing Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]). The “[f]ailure to make [a] prima facie showing [of entitlement to summary judgment] requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Vega, 18 NY3d at 503 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted, emphasis in original]). A. Century’s Motion Century contends that the service elevator was not defective because its records do not reflect prior complaints of shaking or misleveling with the car doors open, and thus, it was not on notice of any prior similar incidents in the six months preceding the accident. Plaintiff’s accident was never reported to Century, and the elevator remained in operation after it had occurred. Century also relies on the surveillance video of the incident to show that the elevator car did not move after it came to a complete stop on the fourth floor. Century also argues that it did not owe a duty of care to plaintiff because it had fulfilled its contractual obligations under the Maintenance Agreement. As against Greenthal, Century argues that it is entitled summary judgment dismissing Greenthal’s cross-claim for indemnification because it was not negligent. At the outset, Century’s contention that a wet or slippery condition on the fourth floor, as opposed to a dangerous condition with the elevator, caused plaintiff to fall is unpersuasive. Vuljaj claimed that plaintiff told him he slipped on a wet floor, but plaintiff testified that his left foot got caught in the gap between the car and the fourth-floor landing. Riccobono also testified that he saw a misleveling condition immediately after plaintiff fell. Conflicting testimony as to how the accident occurred raises a credibility issue which cannot be resolved on a summary judgment motion (see Sutherland v. Comprehensive Care Mgt. Corp., 155 AD3d 414, 415 [1st Dept 2017]). In addition, the surveillance video and still images of the incident are not dispositive on the issue of whether the elevator shook or misleveled immediately before plaintiff fell. Plaintiff’s expert videographer, John Afrides (“Afrides”), avers that the video would not depict the elevator moving or misleveling because of the slow rate at which the images were captured and the poor-quality resolution of those images (NYSCEF Doc No. 245, affirmation of plaintiff’s counsel, Exhibit “L” [Afrides aff], 11). Even after using special software to increase the rate of frames per second and after zooming in on the car doors, Afrides avers that he could not determine whether the elevator had misleveled because the image was extremely pixelated and blurry (id.,
