Fischetto v LB 745, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Fischetto v LB 745, LLC 2005 NY Slip Op 30515(U) August 17, 2005 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 109783/03 Judge: Jane S. Solomon Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] - NEW YORK SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PRESENT: COUNTY PART 4 ~, 7c i Jus tiue 3 INDEX NO. MOTION DATE .,/ . Y . , . . , . -w- ". . I . MOTION SEQ. NO. MOTION CAL. NO. The following papers, numbered 1 to . , ' . . . ~, . . , ' . . , 7 . " ~ Noticb of Motion/ 0rder:to:ShqwCause' Answering Affldavlta - were read on this motton tg/for - Affidavits - Exhibits ... Exhlbks RBplying Affidavits C.ross-Motion. d y e s L' 0 No Upon the foregoing papers, ir IB ordered that this motion , , . A A - A ' G 2 2 2005 . , . . . ~ Dated: , &7;[o?''.' . ' . . ,. . , . I Check one: Check if . . . . ' ,. . . . #ION-FINAL DISPOSITION REFERENCE) [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: IAS PART 55 X - - I - I _ _ _ - L I I _ _ - I I I I - - _ _ l - ROY FISCHETTO a n d MARYANN FISCHETTO, Plaintiffs, I N D E X NO. 109783/03 -againstDECISION ANT) ORDER LB 745, LLC, JANE S - SOLOMON, J - : I n this personal injury action b r o u g h t b y a n e n g i n e e r and his wife a g a i n s t t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y where he worked, d e f e n d a n t I,R 7 4 5 , LLC ("T,ehman B r o t h e r s " ) moves for leave to file a l a t e motion for summary judgment. arid for summary judgment dismissing t h e complaint. Plaintiffs Roy Fi schetto ("Fischctto") and Maryann E ' i s c h e t t o , his w i f e , cross-move for summary judgment on Fischetto's Labor Law §240(1) cause of action. For the reasons s e t f o r t h below, t h e request to m a k e a late motion for summary judgment is granted. Defendant's motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t js g r a n t e d , plaintiffs' cross-motion i s denied, and t h e complaint is dismissed. BACKGROUND Fiuchetto is employed a s a n o p e r a k i n g e n g i n e e r b y R o c k e f e l l e r Group Devel.opment C o r p o r a t i o n ( " R o c k e f e l l e r " ) , t h e p r o p e r t y manages for t;ke buildinq owned by defendant at 745 [* 3] According to t h e agreement bctwccn d e f e n d a n t and S e v e n t h Avenue. R o c k e f e l l e r and v a r i v u s depositions, R o c k e f e l l e r hired a l l operating e n y i r l e e r s for the p r o p e r t y a n d w a s r e s p v n s i - b l e for all d e c i s i o n s as to equipment u s e d and p u r c h a s e s OT equipment under $10,000. On F e b r u a r y 2 8 , 2 0 0 3 , Fischetto r e c e i v e d a s p e c i a l w o r k o r d e r d i r e c t i n g him to perform w o r k on the chiller heads, which are part of the building's cooling system. Chillcr heads a r c steel doors, weighing approximately one ton, t h a t s e a l t h e The chiller v e s s e l c o n t a i n s t u b e s t h a t need t o chil..ler vessel. be cleaned every several years in o r d e r to maintain t h e i r To remove the chiilcr head and access the tubes e f f i c i e r i t use. inside of Lhe v e s s e l , Fischetto had to undo the approximately 50 bolts that h e l d it i n p l a c e and l i f t t h e chiller head. R o c k e f - e l l e r p r o v i d e d a g a n t r y f o r this purpose, w h i c h is "a p o r t a b l e t y p e of scaffolding . . . that you could set up in o r d e r to rig a chain on t o p s o t h a t you c o u l d g r a b s o m e t h i n g and l i f t it or lower it gantry, . . ." ( D e f e n d a n t ' s E x h i b i t A, at 19). Using the Fischetto and a co-worker removed the c h i . 1 1 . e r head and hoisted it off of t h e chiller vessel, lowerinq it to the g r o u n d . A t t h i s point something unknown, probably Lhe weight of the chiller head, caused t h e g a n t r y to move a n d s t r i k e Fischetto. 2 He [* 4] fell backwards, h i t his head on the ground and severely i n j u r e d his right l e g . As a r e s u l t , h e underwent surgery, did not r e t u r n to w o r k f o r six months, and continues to undergo physical therapy. Plaintiff contends that pcnnaneni: rigging s h o u l d have been installed above t h e chiller heads to make IiCLing t h e m easier arid safer. The r e c o r d indicates that R o c k e f e l l e r had considered installing permanent rigging, though it is not clear if t h a t e v e r o c c u r r e d . DISCUSSION Defendant s request to file a motion for summary judgment past the 170 d e a d l i n e set out in CPLR §3212(a) is granted. Defendant has shown good cause as required undcr Brill v, Citv of New York ( 2 NY3d 6 4 8 (2004)). Several reasonable f a c t o r s contributed to the tardiness of the motion, including an inadvertently missed court appearance b y the plaintiffs, and an ongoing attempt at m e d i a t i o n by the parties. Tn addition, plaintiffs do not o b j e c t to the motion as they a l s o move f o r summary judgment, and neither p a r t y is p r e j u d i c e d . 3 [* 5] Labor Law $ 2 4 0 (1) Both parties seek summary j ~ i d c p e n t a s to Fischetto s c1.aj.m f o r statutory liability u n d e r Labor Law 5 2 4 0 (1) . That section provides t h a t while repairing, altering, p a i n t i n g , cleaning 01: t h e b u i l d i r i y owners are pointing a building, responsible f o r erecting thc p r o p e r scaffolding or other devices t h a t wi.1.L p r o t e c t the w o r k e r , including a g a n t r r y of t h e k i n d that Fischetto u s e d h e r e and t h e permanent rigging he claims s h o u l d have been installed. S e c t i o n 240 ( I . ) :imposes absolute l i a b i l i t y upon a p r o p e r t y owner f o r a n y violation of it. It was designed to prevent a c c i d e n t s directly f l o w i n g from t h e application of the force of g r a v i t y kci an o b j e c t Palmer H y d r n - E l e c . 01:p e r s o n . Ross v. Curtis- Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 5 0 1 (1993). T?owever, as the defendant points o u t , routine m a i n t e n a n c e of a building is n o t c o v e r e d u n d e r L h i s statute. See Esposito v. N e w York C i t y Industrial Pevelopment Aqency, 1 N.Y.3d 526 (2003). Fischetto testificd i n a deposition t h a t t h i s activity was riot part of his r o u t i n e , p o i . n t i n g to the s p e c i a l w o r k o r d e r . However, cleaninq thc chiller heads was p a r t o f t h e building s r o u t i n e maintenance a n d a s s u c h a n y i n j u r - i . e s that plaintiff sustained during t h e r o u t i n e maintenance a c t i v i t y c a n n o t impose liability u n d e r §240(1). W h i l e t h e b u i l d i n g i s r e l a t i v e l y new, 4 [* 6] 30 there are no records of long-term maintenance p r o j e c t s , the purpose of the t a s k Fischetto performed clearly was routine maintenance. Contrary to F i s c h e t t o s argument, there is no need for a written p r e v e n t a t i v e m a i n t e n a n c e program to be presented as evidence in o r d e r to prove t h a t periodic cleaning to maintain a functioning cooling system is routine m a i n t > e n a n c e . The fact t h a t Rockefeller was c o n s i d e r i n g installing permanent r i g g i n g to l i f t the chil-lerhead f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e s that t h e t a s k w a s one t h a t needed to be performed regularly. D e f e n d a n t also seeks summary judgment on p l a i n t i . f E s cause of action brought p u r s u a n t to Labor Law 5200, which codifies the owner s common l a w d u t y to properly maintain safe a workplace. As to this claim, the dispositive inquiry is w h e t h e r Lehman Brothers controlled t h e workplace. In reference to §ZOO, t h e F i r s t Department h a s h e l d t h a t a n owner s mere retention of c o n t r a c t u a l i n s p e c t i o n p r j . v i leges or a qeneral r.i ght t.o supervise does not amount to c o n t r o l s u f f i c i e n t to impose liability, and t h a t where t h e injury t o due t o t h e method of work, Labor §200 Law and common law negligence claims must be dismissed in the absence of p r o o f of the owner s a c t u a l c o n t r o l 5 . . . /I Frown V- [* 7] N e w Y o r k C i t y Economic Devcl. C o r p . , 2 3 4 A.D.2d 3 3 , 33 (1st Dep't. 1996) . Here, Lehman Brothers had a c o n t r a c t w i t r . h Rockefeller where the ldtrer maintained supervision over Fischetto a n d directed his w o r k . Eugene Mianti, an employee of Lehman B r o t h e r s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t he k n e w of L h a t permanent rigging over the chiller heads had been considered as an option by Rockefeller. In h i s deposition, he d e s c r i b e s his understanding of t h i s to be for time-efficiency purposes. The plaintiff does n o t present any evidence t h a t Lehman B r o t h e r s employees were aware of a n y s a f e t y c o n c e r n s w i t h t h e gantry or the permanent rigging, n o r t h a t the decision as to w h i c h type of equipment. to use was r i o t up t o the s o l e d i s c r e t i o n of Fischetto's employer, Rockefeller. Lehman Brothers did not have a c t u a l control over Fischetto and cannot be h e l d liable for h i s i n j u r y u n d e r §200. Labor L a w 52411 6 ) Labor Law § 2 4 1 ( 6 ) p r o t e c t s workers who are i n j u r e d d u r i n g construction, demolition or excavation work. Plaintiff was n o t performing t a s k s in any of t h o s e categories b u t was "performing a task that w a s p a r t of his regular duties as the managj-ng agent's c h i e f engineer." 6 See Pctermann v. Arma1 R e a l t v [* 8] 2 . , . Corp., 2 8 8 A.D.2d 51, 55 (1st Dep't. 2001). A s s u c h , the s e c t i o n is inapplicable t o him, and t h e c a u s e o f a c t i o n m u s t be cli smissed. As to the causes of a c t i o n sounding i n negligence a n d l o s s of consortium, they also must be d i s m i s s e d , as plaintiffs have failed to establish that 1,ehman Brothers, as an out-of- possession owner, owed F i s c h e t t o a n y duty u n d e r which plaintiffs c a n recover. A c c o r d i n q l y , i t . h e r e b y is ORDEKED t h a t Lehman Brothers' m o t i o n i s g r a n t e d , and the complaint is dismissed; a n d it f u r t h e r is ORDERED t h a t the Clerk of t h e C o u r t is d i r e c t e d to enter juclgmenl. accordingly w i t h costs a n d disbursements a s taxed. D a L e d ; Angust[ 3 FILED 2005 ENTER : 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.