Moreover, unlike in United Pacific, where the court held that removal of snow could reasonably have occurred "in support of the covered carpentry activities, nothing in Mason's complaint (aside from his use of the generic words "renovation" and "construction") indicates that the HVAC work was performed in furtherance of covered activities. Cf., e.g., Cent. Synagogue v. Hermitage Ins. Co., 828 N.Y.S.2d 538, 539 (App. Div. 2007) (affirming denial of summary judgment where there were unresolved issues of fact concerning whether ramps from which worker fell "were constructed as an incident to the performance of covered operations" of "drywall/wallboard installation"). Northfield has met its burden of showing that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Cibor with respect to Mason's injury that occurred while he was allegedly installing heating and air conditioning vents.
Even if the demolition of interior partitions in this case was incidental to covered operations and therefore covered (see Central Synagogue v Hermitage Ins. Co., 36 AD3d 742, 743-744 [2d Dept 2007]), it is undisputed that the work out of which the claim arose was performed by Apple City, an independent contractor (see Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y. v BCS Constr. Servs. Corp., 118 AD3d 527, 529-530 [1st Dept 2014]). United's contention that Tower cannot rely on the "Independent Contractor Exclusion" in its policy, as its disclaimer was untimely, is unavailing.