The following papers were read on: 1) the motion by defendant/third party plaintiff Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (“Goldman”) for an order dismissing any and all claims and cross-claims against Goldman, and granting summary judgment against defendant/third party defendant, New World Mall LLC on Goldman’s cross-claims and third-party claims; 2) the motion by defendant/third party defendant, New World Mall, LLC for an order granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and all cross-claims against New World Mall, LLC asserted by Defendant Grand Restaurant Group, Inc., and all cross-claims asserted by Defendant Goldman to the extent defendant/third party plaintiff seeks common law contribution and indemnification from defendant/third party defendant; and 3) the motion by defendant Grand Restaurant Group, Inc. for an order granting summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and all cross-claims as against it.Papers NumberedGoldman’s Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Affidavit and Exhibits E182-204New World’s Affirmation In Opposition, Affidavit E246-247Grand Restaurant’s Memorandum of Law In Opposition, Affidavit E248-249Goldman’s Reply Affirmation, Affidavit E252-253Plaintiff’s Affirmation In Opposition E257Goldman’s Reply Affirmation, Affidavit, Exhibits E260-263New World Mall’s Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Affidavit and Exhibits E205-218Goldman’s Affirmation In Partial Opposition, Affidavit of Service E250-251Plaintiff’s Affirmation In Opposition E258New World’s Affirmation In Reply, Affidavit of Service E264-265Grand Restaurant’s Notice of Motion, Affirmation, Affidavit and Exhibits E219-242Affirmation In Opposition, Affidavit, Exhibit E243-245Plaintiff’s Affirmation In Opposition E256-259Grand Restaurant’s Memorandum In Reply E267Grand Restaurant’s Memorandum In Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition E266
*1 Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that the above motions are determined as follows: Plaintiff in this action sues for personal injuries allegedly sustained on April 28, 2012. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that he was “caused to be knocked down” on the third floor of the New World Mall, located at 136-20 Roosevelt Avenue, Flushing, New York, and further alleges that the Defendants were negligent in failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner. In his deposition testimony, Plaintiff alleges that he was beaten up by patrons of “KTV,” a karaoke bar that occupied a portion of the third floor. He further testified that at the time of the assault he was working at a restaurant known as Imperial Crown, which occupied a portion of the third floor adjacent to KTV.Defendant Sol Goldman Investments LLC (“Goldman”) moves (Mot. Seq. 6) for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims against it on the ground that it was an out-of-possession landlord with no liability for the subject incident, and further moves for summary judgment in its favor on its claims for contractual indemnification against New World Mall, LLC.Defendant New World Mall, LLC moves (Mot. Seq. 7) for summary judgment in its favor and dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint, on the ground that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations under CPLR §215(3) for assault and battery claims, and on the additional grounds that New World Mall owed no duty and breached no duty to Plaintiff. Defendant also seeks dismissal of the cross-claims asserted by Grand Restaurant Group, Inc., and dismissal of Sol Goldman Investments LLC’s claims for common law contribution and indemnification.Defendant Grand Restaurant Group, Inc. moves (Mot. Seq. 8) for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it, on the ground that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Workers’ Compensation Law §11, and on the additional ground that it breached no duty to Plaintiff because the assault upon Plaintiff was not reasonably foreseeable.A. Goldman’s Summary Judgment Motion 1. Out-of-possession landlordThe evidence submitted by Goldman in support of its motion for summary judgment on the ground that it is an out-of-possession landlord includes, inter alia: a copy of a “Memorandum of Third Amendment of Lease” dated May 24, 2005, between the trustees of the Lillian Goldman Marital Trust and other related entities, as landlord, and Alexander’s of Flushing Inc., as tenant, for the lease of properties including 136-20 Roosevelt Ave., Flushing, New York; a bargain-and-sale deed transferring a portion of the 136-20 Roosevelt Ave. property to Sol Goldman Investments LLC; a copy of a lease between Alexander’s of Flushing, as landlord, and New World Mall, LLC, as tenant; and the testimony of Kathleen Weeks.The documentary evidence reflects that Defendant Goldman is the current owner of the land whereupon Plaintiff claims to have been injured, and that Goldman is the successor to the parties designated as landlords in the May 24, 2005 lease with Alexander’s of Flushing, Inc.Witness Kathleen Weeks, an employee of Solil Management LLC, which owns Sol Goldman Investments LLC, offered deposition testimony consistent with the documentary evidence. Weeks testified that in April 2012, Goldman owned the property located at 136-20 Roosevelt Avenue and “triple-net leased” the property to non-party Alexander’s Incorporated. She testified that “we have nothing to do with the property but collect rent,” and “everything else is on Alexander’s.” Ms. Weeks further testified that Alexander’s “runs it, fixes it, maintains it, rents it, pays the taxes,” and that Sol Goldman Investments has “nothing to do with the day to day workings of the building.” Under the triple-net lease, Alexander’s was allowed to lease the property “to anyone they want.” Ms. Weeks was aware that Alexander’s had leased the property to other tenants but was not aware of the details. When Sol Goldman Investments receives a summons and complaint relating to that particular building, Ms. Weeks sends it to Alexander’s with a letter advising them that “we are the landlord out of possession, you have
