Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers NYSCEF Numbered Notice of Motion/Cross Motion/Order to Show Cause and 97-121, 123-148, Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 149-169, 170-194 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 186-200, 205, 206, 207-208, 209-210, 211-214, 215-216, 217, 218-221, 222-225, 226-229, 230, 244 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) 231-240, 241, 242, 243 Other DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing cited papers and after oral argument, the Decision/Order on these motions is as follows: In Seq. No. 7, plaintiff Hans Fahning (“plaintiff”) moves for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law §§240 (1) and 241 (6) claims as against defendants City of New York (the “City”), Sea Gate Association (“SGA”), and H&L Contracting, LLC (“H&L” and, collectively, with the City and SGA, “defendants”). In Seq. No. 8, the City moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law §§240 (1) and 241 (6), as well as his Labor Law §200/common-law negligence claims (together with codefendants’ cross claims), as against it. Plaintiff does not object to the dismissal of his Labor Law §200/common-law negligence claims as against the City.1 In Seq. No. 9, SGA moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law §§240 (1) and 241 (6), as well as his Labor Law §200/common-law negligence claims (together with codefendants’ cross claims), as against it; or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on its cross claim for common-law indemnification as against H&L. Plaintiff likewise does not object to the dismissal of his Labor Law §200/common-law negligence claims as against SGA.2 In Seq. No. 10, H&L moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law §§240 (1) and 241 (6), as well as his Labor Law §200/common-law negligence claims (together with codefendants’ cross claims), as against it. Background3 In 2014, the Coney Island “T-Groin” (or terminal-groin4) project included the Sea Gate area at West 37th Street (the “project”) (Plaintiff’s SOF, 1). Nonparty US Army Corps of Engineers, New York (“Corps”) owned and initiated the project, based on its monitoring of the results of its prior (or the 1993) project in the same area. After consulting with the City, the Corps determined that four T-groins needed to be constructed in the private portion of the beach owned by SGA. To that end, Corps retained H&L as the general contractor, which, in turn, subcontracted some of its work to plaintiff’s employer, nonparty Village Dock, Inc. (“VDI”) (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 115-116). Plaintiff’s SOF,
13, 23-25. In December 2014, the work on the project began to the west of West 37th Street. There was a fence located at West 37th Street serving as a demarcation line between the publicly (or the City-) owned land and the privately (or the SGA-) owned land. Specifically, the land to the east of West 37th Street was owned by the City, whereas the land to the west of West 37th Street was owned by SGA. The staging area for the initial work in December 2014 was on the City-owned land that was located approximately 100 feet east of West 37th Street. The accident, however, occurred on the west side of West 37th Street. Plaintiff’s SOF,
