Plaintiff, a union carpenter, was injured when he fell approximately six feet off a scaffold with no guardrails or safety belts. At the time of his fall, plaintiff, in connection with an extensive store renovation, was removing a two-to-three hundred pound sign. Contrary to the motion court's finding, plaintiff's work qualified plaintiff for Labor Law § 240 Lab.(1) protection since it was not routine maintenance but constituted an "alteration" or "repair" of a building or structure resulting in "a significant physical change" thereto (Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 465; Weininger v. Hagedorn Co., 91 N.Y.2d 958;Catoliato v. Sam's Club, 254 A.D.2d 62, lv dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 888) and bore the requisite relation to the overall renovation (see, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 295-296; Binetti v. MK W. St. Co., 239 A.D.2d 214).
In light of the circumstance that the contract between third-party plaintiff Fisher and its subcontractor, third-party defendant F.M.G., was fully performed prior to its execution (see, e.g., Newburger v. Am. Sur. Co., 242 N.Y. 134; John William Costello Assoc. v. Std. Metals Corp., 99 A.D.2d 227, 231, appeal dismissed 62 N.Y.2d 942), there are questions of fact as to whether the parties intended the contract's indemnification provision to have retroactive effect (see, Sweeting v. Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 83 A.D.2d 103, 111-112, lv denied 56 N.Y.2d 503). Accordingly, the motion court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the third-party action for contractual indemnification on the ground that the indemnification provision should not be retroactively applied. In addition, issues of fact respecting whether Fisher supervised, directed, or otherwise controlled plaintiff's work at the time of his injury preclude summary judgment in Fisher's favor upon its third-party indemnity claim.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.