OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Edward LaFlam (“Plaintiff”) brings this Action against American Sugar Refining, Inc. (“Defendant”) and Domino Sugar for negligence in connection with a slip-and-fall incident at Defendant’s sugar refinery in Yonkers, NY. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 1-1).)1 Domino Sugar has not appeared, or otherwise responded to Plaintiff’s Complaint. (See generally Dkt.)2 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 35).) For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is denied. I. Background A. Factual Background The following facts are taken from the Parties’ statements pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, (see Def’s Rule 56.1 Statement (“Def’s 56.1″) (Dkt. No. 36-1); Pl’s Rule 56.1 Statement (“Pl’s 56.1″) (Dkt. No. 39); Def’s Resp. to Pl’s Add’l Mat. Facts (“Resp. to Add’l Mat. Facts”) (Dkt. No. 40-1)), and the admissible evidence submitted by the Parties.3 The Court recounts the facts “in the light most favorable to” Plaintiff, the non-movant, and draws all reasonable inferences in his favor. Torcivia v. Suffolk County, 17 F.4th 342, 354 (2d Cir. 2021) (citing Delaney v. Bank of Am. Corp., 766 F.3d 163, 167 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam)). The material facts described below are in dispute only to the extent indicated. Defendant operates a sugar refining facility in Yonkers, NY. (See Aff. of Michael T. Hensley, Esq. in Supp. of Mot. (“Hensley Aff.”) Ex. C (“Pl’s Dep. Tr.”) at 23:9-14, 46:18-22 (Dkt. No. 37-3); id. Ex. E (“Def’s Incident Report”) (Dkt. No. 37-5)) During the relevant time period, Plaintiff worked as a truck driver for non-party Sweeteners Plus. (Def’s 56.1 5; Pl’s 56.1 5.). His job responsibilities included picking up sugar or another sweetener from suppliers, and then delivering the product to one of Sweeteners Plus’s customers. (Def’s 56.1 6; Pl’s 56.1 6; see also Pl’s Dep. Tr. at 16:7-12 (“I take [the sugar or other sweetener] to a customer, whoever [Sweeteners Plus] sold it to.”).) Liquid sugar was among the sugar and sweetener products Plaintiff would pick up. (See Pl’s Dep. Tr. 17:20-18:6, 47:4-8 (referencing “liquid product” and “liquid sugar”).) According to Plaintiff, when he picked up liquid sugar from Defendant’s sugar refinery in Yonkers, Defendant’s employees took care of loading the product into Plaintiff’s truck, and during that time his only role was to park his truck in a loading bay, turn off the truck’s engine, and then leave his keys by a nearby office. (See Def’s 56.1 7-8; Pl’s 56.1 7-8.) On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff arrived at Defendant’s refinery in Yonkers. (See Hensley Aff. Ex. D (“Visitor Register”) (Dkt. No. 37-4); Def’s Incident Report.) Upon arriving, Plaintiff signed a document titled “Visitor/ Vehicle Register” (the “Visitor Register”). (See Visitor Register.) The top of the Visitor Register contained the following text: RELEASE FROM LIABILITY — In consideration of my being permitted to visit the refinery and other premises/property of American Sugar Refining Inc.[,] Domino Foods, Inc., and their affiliates (the “Released Parties”), I expressly hereby forever release and discharge the Released Parties from all claims, demands, injuries, damages, lawsuits, liabilities, actions, or causes of action, and from all acts of active or passive negligence on the part of the Released Parties, their servants, agents, or employees. (Id.)4 The document’s title appears — in significantly larger font — just below that text. (See id.) Beneath the title, the document contains ten columns and ten rows for visitors to input sign-in information, such as the date, their name, their time in and out, and so on. (See id.) The column titled “NAME/ Signature” also states, in approximately the same sized font, “I AGREE TO THE RELEASE PRINTED ABOVE.” (Id.; Def’s 56.1 15; Pl’s 56.1 15.) There is no dispute that Plaintiff signed the Visitor Register and that he was aware of the language of the release when he did so. (Def’s 56.1
13-14; Pl’s 56.1
