DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff allegedly was injured while performing work at a construction site for his employer, the appellant OMC, Inc. (hereinafter OMC). OMC moved for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law ( see Workers' Compensation Law § 10; Kramps v. Goldbetter, 292 A.D.2d 571; Kramer v. NAB Construction Corp., 282 A.D.2d 714). However, in opposition to its prima facie case for summary judgment, the respondents proffered evidence that OMC entered into written contracts before the subject accident pursuant to which it agreed, inter alia, to provide indemnity for claims arising from "from its own negligence or that of its agents or subcontractors" ( see Sokoloff v. Harriman Estates Dev. Corp., 96 N.Y.2d 409; Matter of Municipal Consultants Publishers v. Town of Ramapo, 47 N.Y.2d 144; Brown Bros. Elec. Contrs. v. Beam Constr. Corp., 41 N.Y.2d 397; Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 N.Y. 48). This is an exception to the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law ( see Workers' Compensation Law § 11; Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 91 N.Y.2d 577; Stabile v. Viener, 291 A.D.2d 395). Accordingly, as issues of fact exist, OMC's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.