Ordered that reargument is granted; and it is further,
Ordered that upon reargument, the last paragraph of the decision and order of this court dated May 31, 1988, is vacated, and the following paragraph is substituted therefor: "The third-party defendant asserted that the purchase order incorporating the contractual indemnification provisions was unsigned and that the indemnification provisions were ambiguous since the first clause provides indemnification against the sole negligence of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., while the latter clause, relating to indemnification for personal injuries, does not. Even if a written contract were deemed to exist between the parties, we construe these ambiguous indemnification provisions in a light most favorable to the third-party defendant, and find they imposed only a duty to protect against the negligence of third parties which might render the premises vulnerable to negligence, theft, and sabotage. Thus, under these circumstances, we agree with the finding of the Supreme Court that this case is governed by Lopez v. Consolidated Edison Co. ( 40 N.Y.2d 605, 609; see also, Levy v City of New York, 75 A.D.2d 841, 842). In light of this finding, we do not reach the merits of the other contentions raised on this appeal."; and it is further,
Ordered that the original determination is otherwise adhered to and the motion is otherwise denied in all respects. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.