Susko v 377 Greenwich LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Susko v 377 Greenwich LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 30836(U) March 29, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 115075/08 Judge: Marcy S. Friedman 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. ANNED ON41312012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: MARCY S. FRlEDMAM PART 5p INDEX NO. SUSKO, ROBERT - MOTIONDATE I 4s MOTION SEQ. NO. I 377 GREENWICH 1 SEQUENCE NUMBER : 006 MOTION CAI.. NO. I I i- PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT Ithis motion tolfor I - - - - - - - - ...".. -.., . _ _ _ _-._ - vIuwI tu PAPER$ NUMBERED - - --- u l ~ bauau u ~ - HiiiaavIls - txhiblts ... Answering Affidavits - Exhibits Cross-Motion: 1 u Yes n No Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion ~ DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOMPANYING DECISIONIORDER. FILE NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE Check one: 0 FINAL DISPOSITION WNON-FINAL DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: DO NOT POST REFERENCE u u SUBMIT ORDER/ JUDG. n SETTLE ORDER/ JUDG. [* 2] Iiiclex No.: 1 15075/08 Motion S q . No. 006 -against- Third-party Iticlcx No..: 590800/09 ALLJXI It.,NY PI,AS'I'ER AND STUC'C'O, INC., Third-party Ilcfendant. Sccoiid 'I'liird-party I nclex No.: 590884/09 - ag ;I ins t - In this cxx iiivolviiiy ;i scaffhld that allcgetily collapsed cluriiig tlic construction 01-the [* 3] third-party plaintiff 377 Greenwich Operating LLC' (C;rceiiwich Operatiiig LLC) (together, .. (-'C.L 1 wic II ) j o in t 1y J I. 1 1 c r (3ss-mu v c i'o I- s 11 i i a ry j 11 g11c' II t ci i m i ss i IIg the co 11p 1aiiit and a1I c ro s s m d 1 1 ~hetii; alternalivcly, Grecnwich secks summary jiidgmciit its cross claims c1;iiiiis ;IS agninsl iig;iinsl Magnctic Ibr contractual indcmnilicutioii ;ind brcacli of contract for i'ailurc lo procure i 11 s ~ ~ r ; i ie. ic 011 M ayit.t i c a 1s o c 1-0- Iii o ves fo I_ s LIiiirnary j ud giiier it d i sinis s i n g the co iiiplni 11t and a11 ss cross claims as against it; allcriiatively, Magnetic scclis suiiim;iry judgiiient on its cross claim for c o 11IYIc ItiI: 1 i I i d e iiin i I'i cation ng ;I i 11 G re c 1i w i c 11. 1 i I 1a I I y , scco n ci tlii rd -17 ;I rt y clcfendant K&M t st Plastcr Inc. (li&M) ct'oss-iiiove's f o r sun-iiiiary j i i d y i ~ i disniissing tlic seconcl-thil-d p x l y i ~ complaint and all cross claitiis ;IS against it. BACKGROUND Plainti (1' was iiijirreel cliiring tlic construction of t h u Grecnwich I-lotcl, located at 377 (3rcunwic ti Strcct i n lower M:uiliattan. Greenwich ou'iis the property. and Magiielic scrved us tllc genernl contractor during the excavation arid Ibiuiclation work. Thc partics disputc whetlicr Magnetic was lhc gciicral contractor for d l or only part 01' thc work during thl: post-foiinilelion construclioii o f the hotcl. In October 2004, Greenwich and Magnetic cxcculcd an agreement for excavation and I'oiindalioii worlc oii llic project (Foundation Agrcenicnl). Lntcr, the two partius rcsponsi bilitics on Mugtictic, but re'scrvcs the right t o Greeilwich lo hire coritractors directly. (See 4 6. I .4.) Tnitiully, Magnetic hired a subcontractor to do the plustcr work on thc ceilings of 2 [* 4] to pnrtncr with K L ~ M do plastcr work at the hoicl. to (& Plnintifi s Deposition, at 33-4 I , 144; Mayictic I+esidt.iit Aiithony Cknuvcsc s Depusilion, at 14.) I IaintiK alleges that on Octobcr 6, 2007, while perlonning plaster work in what would Lwc oiiic tlie hotel s library, lie kll tlirougli the scaffold on which he wiis working. Plaintiff entitlenicnt to juclgnlcnt as ;i imttcr of law, tendcriiig sullkicnt evidcncc to demolistrate the :ibscucc ol my iiiatcrial issues o f f j c t , a d thc opponcnt fiiils to rcbtil lhat showing. (13r:indy B. v 1:deii ( cnt. School Ilist., 15 NY3d 297. 302 [2010]. quoting Alvnrc7 v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [ 19861.) HOWCVCI., iiioving party fails to inake ;i prirna fiicic showing. the il the court iiiusl deny thc motion r c w d l e s s of tlie sul licjcncy of llic opposing papers, (Smalls v Ad1 Indiis., Inc., 10 N Y 3 d 733, 735 [2008] [iiiternal citation omitlcd] [empliasis in original].) Initially, tlic court grants tht: branch oC Grecuwich s cross rnotioii that seclcs dismissal of all claiiizs and cross clainis ;is ngainsl Grecnwich C)peratiiig LLC, ;is the parties agrcc [hat Grecnwich, ratlicr than Grcciiwich 0prr;iting LL,C , owlis tllc property located at 377 Grccnwicli Strcd. I. Labnr 1,nw 6 240 ( 1 1 Labor 1,aw 5 240 ( I ) provides, in rclcvant pnrt: bLAII coiitrxlors and owners aiid llieir agurils ... in the erection, cieriiolilioii, rcpiriiig, altcriiig, paiiiting, clcaning 01: pointing of ;i building or structure shnll liiriiish o r erect, or c;iusc to be furiiishcd or ercctud for the pcrl ormaiicc o l siicli labor, scaffoldi ng, hoists, 3 [* 5] stays, ladders, slings, hangers,bloc.lis, ~ L I I I C Y S , Imccs, irons, ropcs, ;iiid otlier deviccs whicli shall be sc) constriicted, placed arid operated ;ISto give proper protcctioii to :i pcrsol-1so ciiiploycd. I hc Court of Appeals has held that this duty to provide salkiy devices is nondelegablc whcro a brcach has proxiiiiately causcd a plaintifl s injury. (I31md v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 459 [19SS].) A statiitory violation is present where an owner o r general conlrxlor fails to proviclc a worker engaged in section 240 iictivity with adeqiiale protection against ;I risk arising li.0111 ;i physically signiGc:rnl elevation diKwxti:il. (I<unncr v Ncw Yorli Stock Excli., Inc., I3 NY3cl 599, 603 [ZOOO].) [W]here a sakty device has been liimished, and it collapses, a prima facie c a ~ of c liability ~indei. Labor Law 5 240 (1) is established. (Thonii~son St. C h * l e sC : o i i d ~ i i i i ~ i i ~ ~ i i ~ , v 303 AD3d 153, I S 4 [lst Ikpt], dismissed 100 NY2d 556 [2003].) I n this circumstancc, ou iiers nnd geiieral contractors are absolLitely liable evcn if they do not liavc a continuing duty tu sujmvise tlic iisc of safoty equipment." (In re l h t 5 1 st Street Crane Collnpsc J.,itigation, 89 AII3d 436, 428 [ I l k p t 201 1.1 [intcmal citaiion urnitled].) Here, plaiiiti~finahesn prima h c i c showing of ontitlcriicnt to partial summary jLidgmeiif 3s to liability under suction 240 ( I ) . At the time ol his ;acciclcnt, plaintiffwas cngngcd i n a jmlected aclivity - . namely, construction Morcnvcr, plaiiitifi tcstiiied thnt his accident was Q: 1low did you kill ? A: 0: I le11 throiigli thc scaffold wlicn I was walking to [meas~ire] section o r t h e a cciling; the p y o d decking iict Led] 21sa trapdoor and wcnt out from lwo under 111) feet. Did you frill betwcen I W O pieces ol plywood dwkiiig o r , . . somcthing 4 [* 6] ( P l ~ i i i i ~ i lDeposition, at 73-74.) ~l~s A. Greenwich Greenwich u y c s that it is not liable undcr I,abor Law k 240 ( I ) . ;is thc purported j rcitioval or tlie scaf ii)Id planks was :11i iinlbreseeablc and independent iniervcning act, m d this XI, rathcr tliaii any staluiory violntion, proximale14 c x i s c d plaiiitiff s nccidcnt. More pii~ticulnrly,c;rcciiwicli ciles [lie testimony of N ~ i g l i Austin~(Austin), the principal 01 IGQM, b~~ who was woi-king with plaint if^ wlicii Iic fell through the scaffolcling. Aiistin lestilkd that al tcr tlic accident, he went loolciiig fiir thc plaiiks tlial wcrc missing froin tlic scaffold at the lime ofllic accident, niid found tlierii Icaning against a wall in ihe basement pool a r c x (Austin Deposition, 49-50.) It is well settled that 1 alii inclcpcndcnt intervening act may constitutc a supcrscdiiig c;iiist , aiid bc sufficient to relieve a del endnnt oi liability, if it is of such an cxtraordiiinry nature or so altenuated lkoni llic d c f c i i ~ l ~ i iconduct thai responsibility lor tlie iiijiiry should not t~ Siillon E nrni l k v . , I , I ,( . ( 6 0 AD3cl 896 [ 2 Dcpt 201 0 [gusl or wind].) [ l ]licintcrvcniiig 1 o w ~ ~ , c. r. ofliabiliiy. . . .I ( G o n ~ d r z Stern s I k p t . Stores, h c , , 21 1 AL33d 414, 414-415 [ 1 v 5 [* 7] Llcpl 109s 1 .) 011 tlie inslmt niotions, neither Grceriwich nor Magnetic acknowledgcx respoiisibil ity to iiiaintain n safc worli sile. C;rc:cnwich lalccs the position tlid Magnetic was responsible for p m x i l d c t y at the site, inclucling sal tty of the scaIli)ld that plaintiff used, wlii IC Magnetic claims that Giwnwicli was rcxponsihle for thc sal tty of thc scall old, as Greenwich liirecl plairitifl.. Grecnwicli s priiicipal tcslilied that 11c hired Magnelic to act a s the gcneral contractor ;iiid that Magnetic supcrvised all of the conlractors. (Deposition of Ira Ilriickier, at 14- 16.) I-IC also testiticd that he was at Iht: j o b sitc Every day h i t did not siipervise tlic subcoiitmctors. (Id.at 16-1 7.) Anthony Gcnovcsc, Magnetic s Presiclcnt, testiGec1 that Magiictic did not supervise ally of the iradcs that w r e hircd hy Greenwich, and t1i;iL Drukicr superviscd Greenwich s contractors. r (~.~icnovese Dcposition, a t 1 5 - 16.) Undcr these circumstances, it cannot be foiind as a m a t t ~ of IB\N tlial defelidant s negligciicl: could not have coiitri b u k c l to seine exteiit to plaintiffs iiijiiry , (Ciollzalez, 21 1 A112d at 41.5,) (hceiiwicli also argiies tlxil thei-c is iiii issue of Ilicl as to cniisnlion of the accident and, iIi particulnr, whcthcr plaintiff fcll through tlie scclffolcl or fell ofl atruck a the sitc. Grecnwich i submits plaiiilill s liospital record ii.uiii thc d a y ol the xcident, in which plaintiff is quoled as stating: 1 twisled iiiy ankle coining ol f~hc truc1.c. (Octohcr 6, 2007 Medical Chart, at 3). Phiiitii t argiies tlint [his statctiieiit is inadiiiissiblc hearsay. It has long bccn held that ;I 1iiedic:il record conl:iiniiig a plaintiff s statetimil about how ;iii nucidenl occiin-cd, wliich is incowistent with the plaintill s tcstimoiiy, is adrnissiblu as a business i~cu)rd only il llie 1ii;miier in \vliicli the accident occurred v+;asgcrml-iilcto cliagiiosiis and tinlment. (Williams v Alcxl-iiiclcr, 309 N Y 283, 287-288 [1955]; sec also People v C)rtcw, 15 6 [* 8] N Y 3 d 61 0, 7 [30 IO].) Tlic w i g h t ni' recent aiilliority holds h l a plaintiffs stateniciit in a 61 hospital rccol-cl d x m t tlie c:iiis(;' of ail accident vvill hc adniissible as a11admissiun, evcii it it was no( relevant to cli~igiiosis aiid ti-cntmcnt and tlicr'cf~71.c docs iiot qualify as a biisiness I-ccord, provi~id tliat tlic cvidcnce eslablisl-ies that the pl~iiiili~l-~ the soiirce of tlic statement. (Scc c.g. WBS I'r-cldnkiii v A ~ I X Realty ot'NY C'orr., 69 A113d 455, 456 [ I " Uept 20101; Ouispe v Lemlc & Wolff-, ltic., 260 AD2d 95 1: 1 l k p t 19991; Clolccr v Bnlilinl Foods, Tnc., 52 AD3cl 765 [2'ldDepl 'I' 2008], l v dciiicd 1 1 NY3d 708 [2OOX].) Notably, c'vcii the Courts which re;isoi1 that the entry itsell' is iiiadmissiblc where tlic statcmc-nt about causntion is not gcrinant. to diagnosis and ti-caliiicnt, recopiize that thc doclor o r iiicclical provicicr who made lhe ciitry is compctunt tu testify to the plaiiitift7s allcgcd admission against iniercst. (Willinnis, 309 NY a1 286, 111 ; Sclirocdcr v Coiisolidntocl Kdisoii Co. of N Y. 249 AD2d 69 [ I Dept 19981.) '1 'he co ui-t 1-7I I cis t li ;i t the dcpo .5:it i o 11 t e s lim o t i y ( f Ar 1i SiikI1wan i [lie physic i 3 1' s ;iss i s 1;ill t 7 1 ~ who tmk plainlill's stntcmcnt while CC+III~S plaintiff as h e Iiu was in tlie el-ucrgency I-OO~JI,i s stillicient to idcrilili o f a statenleiit i n tho Iiospitd record atmi1 a cmsc o f the accidont --- riaiiicly, a MI fioiii a ~~LICE;. ru'cvcrthclw, the court holds tliiit this statemelit is insufllcieiit to bar siiiiiitinryjiidgiiient i n plaintiil's kivor. I'IaiiiiiK's accident w;is witiicssed by his parlner, N;iiiglibcrt Austin, who tcstitlccl, ;is did plaintiR; that plaintiff fell tlirrough the scaffold. (Atistill I>cp(osition,at 46-47.) Austin, who achnowleclgcd that he itistallcd [lie scaffold ( L a t 3S), is clearly a11 interested witiicss. Howevcr, Van Davis, CL security girard nl the preiniscs, testifiiecl witlioiit coiitrxliction h a t hc hc:ird m c l helpcd pick him up :Ilsci, fi-om ;-I baiig, went to tlio ncarby 100111 cvhcre plaintiff w:is workiiig, betwt.cn thc sc:illbld, (& Lhvis Deposition, at 12,) Signiiicaiitly delkiidants do nut disputc plaiiitil't's tcstimony that thcrc were plniilis missing f r o m the 7 [* 9] 'l'hus, the coiirt h d s that there is 170 t'iictuiil clisputc that plaiiitiff k l l through the scaflold, itlthough h e 1wspit.al record raiscs a tri:hlc issuc of f x t ;is to whether anotlicr fall from a truck may also have been ;I ; contributing i cniisc of plainti f1-s injury -. an issuc that caii bc dcterminecl t y jury at trial in lising plair-itift's dninages. Plaintifl's rriotioii for suinm:iry jiidgtiieiil acwrdingly bc granted BS oii his Lubor Law 3 240 ( I ) claim will to (.ii.cciiwicli. I3. Magnetic Magnclic argucs thal il w;is not Ihe general coiltractor, or an agent of the owncr, with respect lo thc plaster work pcrfoi.nrcd by plaiiitin'at (he tirne of h i s accident. Pl:iintilTcol-iteiids that Magnctic was Ilic gcn~.ral contrnctor oii the proiect, and respoiisiblc f o r the generd s a k t y 01. tlic entire site. (_icncralcontractor? h w c no liahility under L i b r I,aw I $5 240 (1) md 241 (6) wlwc tlic work being perror1nc.d at the time of thc nccidcnt w:is no1 within tlic scope ol'the coiitract d e n i d 78 NY3cl 858 [ l W I].) A s csplnined by Ihe Appcllatc Division o f this Departiiiciit: "[Tlliis del'ense inures only to thc bcnelit ol'llic. parries who lackcd [lie authority to supervise or control tlic work. The rule has its gciicsis i n the cuiicept that I ,ahorl a w liahility undcr scctioii 240 (1) aiid scction 241 (6) is premiscd 011 an owIier's or general contractor's right t o conlrol the \vork, irrespcctivc oI' whether s t d l control is cscrcisccl, and hat if'the work lcacliiig to thc accident is outsidc of the scopc' of wIi:it is contracted Ibr, tlierc is iio right o1'control on tllc part oi'the contractor :ind t h i i s no liability under tliose stahitcs." x [* 10] Opcii Iloor Faiiiilv Med. C tr.. Iiic., 74 AD3d 657, 658 [ 1st I k p t 20101.) Mag 11ct i c and C; reen w i c 11 b c)t h re 1y 1 11the 3 C: (1i i s L ruc t i o 11A g e e 111ciit . AIt ho ti gli u i i s i g I I ed, tliis Agreement is enl orceablc, ns the conduct of Greenwich aiicl Magnetic establishes that Ootli siclcs intended to be bomd. (Scc Kowiilchuk v Stroup, 61 Al13d 118, 135 [ I st I k p t 20091 I i l i t i . m i l qiiot:itioii marks atid citation omittccll.) The pnrtius, however, cite differing sections or thc C onstrwAion Agreement in support ol their positions on wliel-her Magnetic had autliority to s 11 ci-vi se ii nd con I: rc) I p 131a i u f i 1.1 s wo r IC, Section 10.2.1 ol h e Cloristriiclioii Agrcoiiieiit. entitled Safety o l Persons aiid Properly, on w hi ch C; rcci 1w i ch pl iiccs c I I I p I 1~1s . prov i tlcs i 11 re1ev ;in t part : is l lie Owner [Ci~~eenwich] iissiiiiius no responsi bi ljty or liability for the physical coiidifion or safety ol the I rqjcct Site or any improvements located 011 tlic Projecl Sitc. Tlw Clontractor [Magnetic] shall hc solely responsible li)r piwiding ;I salt. placc for the performance 01- the Work. l l i c Contractor shal I providt: lor Ilic snfcty and protection of all Subcontractors aiid Contractor personncl, and other persons who may coiiie in contact with the Work within or adjacent to thc Project Site o r such other locations whcru any Work is pcrforn-led. Section 1 , I .? of tlie Constructioii Agreement clcfiiics l i e Work as: tlic construction :iiicl services required by aiid/or reasonrihly i t i lk ra b 1c li oni ;I 11 c o i i x i stc 11 with t he Co ti t ract Doc i iiiieii I s d t whether coniplctrd or pxtially cornpletcd, a n d i iicludes all other I d x ~ r materials, cquipmeiit and services provided or to bc provided , by thc Contractor to fiiliill tho contrxtor s obligations. The Work inay constitute tlic whole or n part oi tlic Project. Scctioii 1.1.4 clelincs tlic I ro.ject ;is: the total constriiction of. which thc Work perlhrincd uiider the Contract Dociiments rnay be the wholc o r R pnrt a n d which ni:iy iiiclude Owiicr or by sepxitu coiiti-;ictors. coiistruction by ~ I i e Soctioii 3.3.1 entitled Supervision and C:onstr[iction I roccdui-es, providcs: ~ 9 [* 11] l l ~ C. oiitractorsliall supci.visc and clii~ct Work . . , . The C. ontractor 11ie shall be solely rc.sponsiblt. h r and have control over constriiction inems, mcthods, tccliniclucs, scqucnccs and proccdures and for coordiiiating al I por-lions or the Work imder tlit: Coiitrxt. . . . 11. the Coiilractor determines that sucli means, methods, tecluiiques, sequences or procedurcs may not bc safe, thc Contractor shnll give timely written ric)tice to the Owncr and Arcliituct and sliall not prucucd with tliat portion of tlic Work without liirther written inslructions iioni tlic Architcct and Owner. . . . Section 5.1.1, on which Magnetic pliices emphasis, provides in pertinent piart: A Subcontractor is a pcrson o r critity who has a direct contract with the Contractor to pcribl-in ;i portion 01 thc Work or to s~rpply labor, materials, is services and/or equipriieiit for. tlic Project. , , , Thc tcrm ~SLibco1itr;iCtOr refcrrccl to throllghout the Conlrac~ L)oculllents . . . nntl mea11s 1 ; Subcoiltractor or ai1 autlioi-imcl representntivc of tlic Subcontractor. The Lerm Siibcontrac tor does not include ;I sepnrale contractor or subcontractor-s of a scpiiratc coiltractor. Scctioii 0.1.4, eiititlcd Coiistructioii by Owiicr or Hy Scparate Coritr;ic1ors, provides, consistent with section 5.1.1: Unless otherwise providccl in thc Chntrnct I)ocuimenls, when the Owner pcrforiiis coiistruction o r operations related to the Project with thc C)wncr s ow11 Ibrccs, tlie Owner shall bc dec;.med to bc suh,jcct to thc same obligations aiid to liavc tlic saiiic rjglits which apply to the Contractor under the C oiiditions of tlic Contract, including, without excluding othcrs, those stated in Articlc 3, this Articlc 6 a n d Articles 10, 11 a ~ 12. ~ d ( onstruction of thc contract is lor the court in tlic first instance. In determining thc scopc of con~ractualobligntions, tlic reasonable expectation o f tlic p - t i c s is a hctor to be consiclcrccl, and uowts must interpret n contract so ns to give mc:ining to d l ils terms. (Cjrcntcr Ncw Yorli Milt. Ins. C o. v Mutual Mar. (-)IT.,3 AD3d 44 [ I Ilcpt 20031.) kprovisions oi the Coiislructioii Agrcciiiunt, read ;IS z1 providc for tlic snfcty of its owii employees aiicl sulxxiitraclors ciii-cct contract. lii whole, rccluirc Magnetic to i t . , tllose with which it has contrast, where Ilie Owiic r ctitcrs into its owii subcoiitracts, thc Owner s ;I [* 12] Agrccincnt deleg,ratcs rcsponsibility to Magnetic sali-ty to Mngnctic s have ;I fc7r s i k sal cty, i t limils this rcsponsibility for personncl and Siibcontrnctors which, in I~irii, clciiiied ;is contraclors wllo arc direct contract with Magnetic. 7 hc courl accordingly holds that (he Coiistriicliun Agreeiiient docs not, by its t o m s , delegntc responsibility lo Magnctic for [he safety ol the work of pl;iiiitiiT u-jth whom Gi-cciiwich liad its own coiitrnct. A n indepciiclcnt issue CY ish, howevcr, as lo whctlicr Magnclic w;is delegated Mngnetic s course oCconcluct. As explained by tlic Court of Appeals, cl third party such as a construclion iiiaiingcr iiiny he vicariously liablc as xi agciit oi the propcrly owiicr for iiijurics sustained unclcr [lie statutc in an inslance wlicrc the niatiager had thc , ;tbility to control tho activity which brought about the inj ~ a y When thc work giving rise to [thc duly to cont oriii to thc recluircmcnls ol thc i,abor Law.1 has been clclegiited to :i third party, Ilia1 thircl party thcn obtains tllc concomitant aulhority to supcrvise i i i i d control that work aiid bcconies a statutory agt nt 01 the owner or gcncr:il contractor. Thus, iiiiless a clci undant has supervisory control and authority over tlic work k i n g done when thc plaintiff is iii.jiired, tliure is 110 st;ituiory agcncy coiifcrring liitbil i ty uinder thc I ,ahor Law. (Walls v Turncr C onstr. C o., 4 NY3d 861, 863-864 [ZOOS-I [intenid quolalion marlts and 519 Dept 201 01 [ hcliiig primc contractor liable as slatulory agent cvhcre il had Ixcn clclcgatccl supervisory control and aiitliorily over tlic work bcing doiic when tlic plaiiiiiff was iri.jiircd .. , partiut11~i.i-ly rcspcct to s;ifcty issues. ]) wilh M agne t i c s o IY 11coil st111 c t i u 11 super in t en dc i i L , Joe I ,oM o ni c 0 , t cst i fit:cl that plain 1iff w:is ;i [* 13] subcontractor o f Gruonwicli but that Magnetic supc'ri-isccl his work aiicl was in chargc of tlic wliolt. ~vo1-1~ (1,oMonico Deposition, at 1 1 .) I-IC. also tcsti1it.d that it was his responsibility site. "to provide tlic j o h is ran [sic] in a safu manner" (d 12); that it was his responsibility, as at manager of tlic w o r k site, lo poilit out tu plaintifl'ifhc was doing soincthing iinsafc u i c l that he Iiad the power lo stop plnintill's work. hnvc tolcl plaintifl'thal ;I (Icl.:It IS.)' I11 (id.at 13-14); fact, 1,oMoiiico c13iiiicd to scaffold in [lie n-iiddlc of the libral-y arca 011 which plaintiff worked was not pi*opcrIy creckci. (J at 19.) While lic tostificd that Magiiclic did not clii-ccl any aspect of k. pI;iintillrs otlici. t h i wlicrc tlic work was goiry to be done, ancl that his dircction w;is all LVOI+ " schecldii~g"(id. OS), his tcstiiiiony containucl ~iiiiiieroiis at aclinowledl;.iiier-~ts lie was that respoiisihlc for snL'dy on tlic silc as ;i wliolc. Greenwich's priiicipnl, Ira Druckier, lestilied si111i 13r Iy t h ;I t M agnc t i c ' s rc s 13on s ib i I it i c s i iic 1i Id eci (Ilruliier Dcptmition, :it s 11 rv i si o n o 1 pl ai 11 pc ti s work a 1cl 1 sit c sa lk t y . 58, 85.) r 7 1 his testiiiioriy raises ; I triable issue of fact ns to whether, apart li-onl tlic C.'onstriictioii Agrccmcnl, Greenwich delcgiitcd supcrvisory control aiid authority to Maglietic over [lie work hcing cionc wlicii pl;iinlill'wi~siii.iiired. (SCC Ikirritos7 75 AD3cl at 5 19.) As thcre is ;in issuc of liict as to whelher Mngiictic l i x i the authority to siipcrvisc plaintiff-s work, the brancAies ol'bolh p I;\ i titi I s mot ico 11 and Magnc 1j c ' s cross 1110ti o 11 t h:i t seek s ~ i i i111ary j ud g131c11t regnrd ing T i Miigiictic's liability uiidcr 1,abor Law 11. I ,ahor Law ~ 4 240 ( I ) I T I L I S bc clcnied. ~ 200 and C~omniori-I w . N e d i w i c c a Labor 1,aw 200 is a codilicntioii of the c o i i i i i i c ~ i i - I :cliity inipsccd irpori ai1 owner or ~~ 12 [* 14] c o i i t r x h r to providc construclioii workcrs w i h a safe place to worli. (SeeC omes v New York S t n w b;lcc. ancI C3as C orp., 82 NYZd 876 [ 19931.) Cases mdcr Labor Law $ 200 iiill into two bi-oncl categories: tliosc jiivolviiig injury causcd by :I dangerous or defkctivc condition at tlic (31oi-lisito, and those causcd by the iiimi~cr mcthocl b y which the work is pcrfonned. (OrtcCLa v I iiccia. 57 AD3d 53, h I [? Id Dept 20081: also 1.lrban v No. 5 Times Sq. Dev., LLC, hZ AD3d 553, m [ i s ricpt 20091.) Where tlic a1lcgcd fiiilure to provide 21 siak work place nrises from the metliods or matcrinls iised by the iii.juicd worker, Iiahility criiinot bc iiiiposed on [a clci endant] iriilcss i I is showii that i t cxcrcised sotiic supervisory control over tlic work. (Hupliex v I ishiiim C onstr. Corp., 40 AII3cl 305, 306 11 I k p t 20071.) (l;encral supervisory aiithority is insuf ficicut to controllccl coiistitiite sqwrvisory control; it must he dernonstratcci that tlic [owner or contrnc~or] - iiiaiiiicr in which tlic plainli II performcd his 01-hcr work, the ~ - - _ LV;IS pcr-fornied. liow h e iiij iiry-prociiicing wot-I; (Id.[cnipliasis in original] .) In contrast, Lvhere tlic clcfwt arises from ;I dangerous conditioii on [lie w 7 . . site, instead c 11; or rrom the methods o r makrials ~rscd plaintifl und his cmpluyer, ai owner or coiilractor i s by liablc under Labor I ,aw 5 300 when Lit] crcaled 11ie dunperoils condition causing an injury o r wlicri [ill IiiiIed to rciiiedy ;I daiigcrous or dckctive condition ol which [it] had actual or curistructive iiotico. (Mcnduzii v I lifiliaoint Assoc., IX, l,l,C783 A113d I , 9 11 I k p t 201 I ] [inlrrnd quotation mai-ks and citation omitted]; scc also Miiiorczyli v Dormitory Auth. ol the Stnto ol N.Y., 74 AII3d 675 I Dept 201 01.) I n this circumstnticc, whethcr [it] controllcd or dii-cctccl the iiic~Iincr plainti fl s work is irrelevnnt t o thc Labor Law ij 200 ancl commor-)-law of iicgligcnce claiius, . . . (Sedil v I-:pstein, 72 hD3d 4.55, 455 [ l h Dcpt ZOlO].) [* 15] A. Greenwich Greenwich argiies 11i:iL plaintill's 1.ahor J.2a\\ 200 2nd coiiiiiion-I~w negligcnce claims shodcl hc clisniissed, ;is i t did 1101 liavc nvticc ol'tlic daiigcrous condilion iiivolving the niissiiig pI:~iks 011 the scal'lbld plaintiff was tising nt tlic tiine or his nccidCiit. However, plairitiff's accidenl Mls in the method-aiicl-niailner catcgory, ;IS tlie accidciit was caused by a inaterial or his work, ii s c a h l d , und not ;I clcfcct on the work site. (& C.'astclloii v Reinsberg, 82 AL13d 6 3 5 , 636 11 sl Depl 20 I 11.) Tli~is, Grcenwicli is recl~iircdto niake ;I s u p rv i s CI ry con t TD 1 o v er p 1;i i i i ti ft' s work i 11urd c r t c) w a x s 11 mmary .j ii clg 11en t 1 it i t showing tlint it did not exorcise cli smi ss i 11 g plaintiff's Labor I,aw 5 200 and coiniiioi.1-1aw negligciic~cclaims. As it clicl not attempt to do so, mil argues, inste:id, iiierely thnL it did not lime nolicc of tlic condition of'thc scaffold (i.e., that i11 cI giiicnt cl i si1i iss ing, pl ai 1-1ti ft' s Labor Law $ 2 00 and coimioii- law tic g Ii gcricc cl aims. 13, Magnetic Wliilc, :s disciisscd above, there is ai1 issw ol'hct as to ~v1iethc.rMaglietic l i d tlie i aiihori ty to supervise p1:iiiiLil't's \vork, its submissions uiakc clear that il did not cxcrcisc siipervisory conti.ol ovcr plainliil's w o r k . Spcciiicdly, plaintilf' tcstiticcl that, while Mayielic gavc liini gel-ieral diredions on "what ;ire;is woulcl bc rcxly, wlicre they wanted ~liey didn't want l:i\c LIS LIS, what arcas in," Mngnclic did not tell him how to do his work. (Plaintill's Llepositioii, at iicgligeiicc. (Scc I lugIie1;. 40 AD3d a l 309.) 'l'lic brarich o f Magnetic's cross iiiotioii ilia( seclis dismissal of plaintil'l-s Lnbor 1,aw $ 200 and coiiiiiion-law negligcncc claiins will lherehrc 14 [* 16] bc gr311tCd. 111. Ll~bor Li1w 8 241 (6) Labor Law $ 241 providcs, in relevant par(: All contractors and owners iiiitl their agents . , . shall coniply with thc following ruquiremeiits: . . . 6. All arcas iii which constr~ictioii, excavation or demolition u-ork js being pcribrmed slinll be so coristructod, shored, t qiiipped, guardod, arranged, opcratcd os und coiiduc~cd to provide reasoilable and adcqunte prolectioii and snfcty the I:, c r s o 11 c in 1 1oy ed h e r e in or Ia w h I I y f recl i i c 11 ( ing s i rcli p Iaccs . s 7 It is wll setlled that this slatutc rcquircs owiicrs aiicl contractors and their agents to provide reasonable. aiid adcquatc p r o l e c h i and safety f o r wvrkers a i d to cornply with the spi ci t?c safcty rides nnd regiilatious proiiiiilgated by the Chmniissioner o r the I.)cpartment of Labor. ( ~ X I NY2d 41-14, SO 1-50> [1993], quoting Labor Law $ 241 IC; I.) I hisduty is ncondclcgahle and exis(s evcri in the absence (of control or supervision of thc worksik. (Rizziito v I,.A. W e i i ~ c r Clontr. Co., 91 N Y 3 l 343, 348-349 [I 9981.) In order to niaintain a viable claiiii under 1,abor Law 9 24I ( 6 ) - the plaintiff inirst allegc a violation o r a provision 0 1 the lndiistrinl C odc thal iiiiiiidntcs cuinpliaiice with cc~11crek spccificalions, a s opposed to a provision that establish[es] getlc ral safety standards. (u, X1 NY2d at 5 0 5 . ) J hcli,i.mer gives risc to a nonde1eg;iblu duty, while the Iattcr does not. &I.;SL ~: -Misiclii v C:uradonna, also 13 NY3d 51 1, 51 5 [.20001.) l lairitiff alleges that clcfkiic1:ints violated scctioiis 23-5. I (c) ( I ) and 23-5.1 (c) ( 1 ) ofihe l~iclustrinlCode. 12 NYCIIII 23-5.1 (c) ( 1 ) provides, in relcvaiit parl, that a11 scaffolding shall he so coristructud as lo bear h u r times the itiaxiiiium weight iequircd to be depenclant thereli-om o r plncccl tlicreon when in LISC. I2 NYC RK 23-5. I (c) ( I ) , eiitjtlccl Scallbld planliing, p r(j v i d cs : 15 [* 17] I : X C ~ . I J 011 1lecdlc bcfilll ~11ic10 1 t :scaffolds, ~ ~ n f f ol>li1d<s ~112111 ~ ~ ld extciid not less than six inches bcyond aiiy support tior iiiorc than I8 iiiclies beyond any ciid support. Such six iiicli m i i i i n i i i i n requirciiiuit shall riot apply wlicii s d i planks are seuurcly fastcned in place. Scaffold plarilis shl-illbe ltiicl tight 317d incliried plmhiiig slid1 bc sccurely listened in placc. The subdivisions of 12 NYC RR 23-5. I contain specilk directives that arc sufticient to sustain a c a ~ i s e of iictioii unclct- I.,abor Law tj 24 1 (h). ( I oiiivlik v JimeGeld Assoc., 57 AD3cl 5 I 8, 52 I [2 Depl 3008). Grcciiwich contends l h n ~ thcsc rcgulatiom are initpplic:tble, 3s plaintill cuntcnds that his accident was thc rusult of the removnl of planks froin the s c n ~ h l dand was not , related to the scd folcl s ability to bear weight or the placement of planks. Wliilc Grcciiwich wlis sulmiits testimony fi-om Austin l o thc cft cct that Iht. sci-ilT~ld safe wlicri initially constriicled (Austin l k p s i t i o i i , at 8 I), il providcs iii, cviderice that (lit: specific rcquircmcnts of 12 N Y C l N 23-5. I ( c ) ( I ) id 13 NYCRR 23-5. I ( c ) ( I wcrc iiiel. Nor does il submit aiiy autliority that . tlicsc Indiistrial Codc provisions do not contintie to apply to a scnffclcl thnl is altered :iller its instdlation. (l;t-cciiwiclitherelore fails to makc a prima h c i c showing h t i t is entitlucl to suiiiiiiary ~juclgriiciitdismissing plainlifl s T,abor I,aw $ 241 (6) claim. (seegenerally Treu v C ai,iwlletti, 71 AD3d 994, 998 r2 Tkpt 201 O].) M~gnelic iiI:ikcs no argiiincnt with respect to I2 NYCliI< 23-5,1 ( c ) (1) or 12 NYC RK 23-5,l (c) (1 ) and tlierefbrt. also I iils t o t1id-x a priiiia facic showing as 10 liability undcr seclion 34 I (6) branches 01 Greenwich and Magiictic s CIUSS motions that seek disinissd of I hc plainlill s Labor Lnw 8 24 1 (6) clnini will accordingly be cleiiiecl. IV. IL GM s Cross Motion I i c t M sccks dismissal uf Greciiwich s secoiid tliit-cl-partycoinplaint, c:l;liiiis asscrtcd 2s well ;is 2\11 cross :is against it. Grecnwich. which brings cross clniins against KcQM f(or cotitract~rd 10 [* 18] iaiicl coiiiiiioii-l;iw indei~iiiilicatic711, l i ~ breach of. contract for failure to prociire iiisur:ince, aiicl r ai*gucsiriitially that IGtM s cross inotion shoiild be denied oil tlic ground that it was untimely. 1LQM docs not contest lhr iiiitiiiieliiiess of its subinission, but ar-gucs tlial Greenwich s cross motion arid its owti motion raise SUI^ KLQM s cross inoticm was tilcd of tlic saiiic issues. OH .liily 27, 201 I , iiiorc than 120 days altcr Fcbrti:wy 4, 201 1, the datc oft?lins ol the note ofissuo. It was therelore untiriicly. (& CPLK 3212 [a].) A n mtiiiicly cross motion for suiiiiiinry judgmeiit ma) bc coilsidered by the court, even iii the abscnce oL good ca~isc, wl~crc tiniely iiiolion fot- sciniiimy jiidgmeiit was iiiade seeking rclicf a r i c w l y identical to that sough1 hy the cross motioii. (Filannino v I riboi~ou~li Bridge & I unncl Auth. - AI13cl 280, 28 1 1 I l k p l 20061 [iiitcrnal quolation marks and cilatioiis oinittcd].) 14 -1 I Icrc, the reliel sought by K&M is not 1ieiIrly iclentical to tl~c relict. sought by ally of tlic otlici. piirties oil tlicir motions. Pliiiiitii l sccks sunimary $udgincnt against C;i+ccnwichand Magnetic ax to liabilily under Labor I ,aw $ 240 ( I ) . Crrcciiwich seeks clisiiiissal oi plaintiff s coiiiplciint and cross claims against it or, alternatively, summary jitdgtmcnt on its cross c l a i m against Magnctic. Miigiietic sccks disniissal of the comp1;iiiit niicl cross cliiims against i t , and juclgiiicnt o i i its contractual iiidcmniiication claiiii agniiist Gret.riwich. None of tlic other moving partics seeks summary judgmciit against K&M. On its cross-motion, K&M scclcs dismissal of C;I-cc 11 ic 11 s ind em 11i i j cat i r) ti a t i d breac h of co ti t r:ic I c 1ai 11 , as we 11 as cl is 111i s sa 1 o 1 M agii ct i c s w IS cross claim for iiid,iii,iilicalion. While tlierc arc some overlapping issues on tlic motions - c , g , wlicther lhe reinoval of planks ii-oni tlic scat l old coiistitutcs an iiitwvwing act that would relieve Grcenwich of linbility -- I<&M s ultimatc linbility is riot at issue iiridcr any of thc othcr parties inotions. Moreover, I<&M does not pr-ovidc any eviclcncc to show aiicl, inclced, does not c v m 17 [* 19] ilc.c.liiics to consider Kc M s cross-niotiori 011 the merits. V. ( ross Claims Betwcun Greenwich ~ u i d Magnetic Greenwich scclis partial summnry jiidgimnt as lo liability on its cruss claims againsl Magiiulic seeks parlid summary juclgiiicnl against (jrccnwicli oil its cross claim for contractual l hc Fountlation Agreement, which governs tlic excavation nnd lbirndation work, providcs h a t M:ignetic will itidciiinily Grccnwicli h r actions :irisiiig out of Magnclic s negligence, or tlic negligeiicc of those working undcr Mngiictic s aiitliority. (Foulidation Agreenient, $ 17.) To tlic fullcsl extcilt pcrmittcd by Incv, the Contractor shal I defciicl, indemnify m d hold harnilcss the ( h l e r . . . from ~ i n d o g i n s l all liability, cI;tillis, damages, losscs, suits, judgiiieiih, liens, cticumbriinces niici expense, includiiig but riot limitecl to nttorncy s Ites, arising out of o r resulting Il.oln perfoimance of the Work . . . only t o the extcnt caused by the acts or oiiiissions of the (I ontrnctor, a Subcontractor, Siib-sul,cunLractor, or any person o r cntity dircctly o r iiidircctly eiiiployccl by tlicm or unyone for whose bc liddt., regarcilcss ol wliotlier such liability claim, c[aiii:ige, loss o r uspeiisc is ciiused j 1.1 pii1.L by ;t party indemniticd herculldcr . . . acts tlicy iiiiiy 7, 1 [* 20] 0 . 1.4 o f tlic C onstruction Agreement, which pro\ idcs: Unlcss otlierwise providcd i n the cuntrac t documcnts, wlicii the Owner perf oniis conslrirctiou or opcrLitims related to the Project with (-)wncr s own hrccs, tlic Owner slid1 bc dccmecl to be subjeci to tlic smie obligations n i ~ to linvc thc smic I-iglitswhich applics l [sic] to thc Contractor iindcr tlic coiiditioiis or the coiiti-xt, including, without cxclLidiiig otlicrs, tliosc stated in Article 3, Article h aiicl Ai-tides 10, 1 1, :incl 12. l liisIm>visiuii assigns Magnetic s rights and rcxpoiisibililies to Greenwich, in the eveiit that, ;ISmith plaintill s plnstcr jvork, Greenwich clircctly hires its owii contr:ictors to perform work. It does not cspressly providc to Mngiictic ;I right lo bc iriclcinriif-ledfor nccidents arisirig liom ~vc)rk clonc b y Greenwich s contractors. Ihther, Magnctic claims a right lo indcniiiification 1xist.d oii the rclkrenctt in section 6.1.4 10 Article 1Jiidcr settled principlcs to iriclcnuiily, ;I 7 of tlic C onstruction Agreement. ol contract interpirtatioii, Lw]hen a party is under 110 lcgnl d t i t l , c o n t r x t assunling [hat obligation iiiust be strictly construed to avoid rcading into it ;L u l y which thc pnrtics did riot inlend to hc assutncd. l he promise should not hc foulid unless d i t can hc clearly iinplied lYom tlic Iniiguage md piirpose ol thc entire agrcctiiciit arid the l sui-i.o~rnding k t s a i i c l CirCU1nst;iiices. (Hooper Assnc. v AGS Computers, Inc., 74 NY2d 487, 40 1-40? [ 1SSCI] [intcriid citalivns omitted].) ArticIc 3 of the C:oiistriiction Agreement coiitaiiis ;in indrmriiI-icBtinii pi-ovisiun ( $ ?. 18). I-Iowcvcr,tlic vast majority of its provisions govcrii clivcrsc aspccts oC the Contractor s pcrl oimarice of work, including supcrvision and construclion pr(.)cedures ( $ 3.3. I )? provision and payment li)r Inhor :mtl materials ( 5 3.41, obtaining ol pcrniils (5 3.7), a n d cmployiiient d a siqxrintendcri[ ($3.9). While the applicability o f thc construction provisions is apparent where Grceiiwicli cscrciscs its right to hirc its ow11contractors to pcrli)riii [* 21] woi-k, thc courl c;iiiiiot find that lhe gencral rcfcrence tu Articlc 3 iriiamhi~iioi~sly evidciiccs ii clear iii~eiit impose :in iridcninificalioii obligation iipon Greunwich in tho cvcnt it elects to to pc I fo1.111\YO r li . Even assurii iiig arguendo that tlic indemnilicat ion clause ob1igates Greenwich to providc iiideriiiiification, Magnetic fails to demonstratc as ;I matter of law that Greenwich was rcspoiisible fix tlic snfely OL the scafhld and, thus, that pIaintilTs accident. ;in act or oiiiissioii of Circenwich causcd (B v 36 C.2. St, Assoc.. 1,LC'. 46 A113d 268, 271-273 11'' Dcpt LJrbiiia 7007].)c'o~~vcrscly, to GI-eciiwich's cliiim for indcmnillcation agaiiisr Magnetic, Greenwich ;IS hils to deimnstr'ntc t h i t Magnetic was rcsponsiblc for [tie sal'cty of [lie scaffold arid lhnt its act or omission was a caiisc of the acoident. The court iiotes thal evcii if the indeninifrc3liori provision in tlic Foundation C'ontracl wc rc :i 1717 I i cab I e, n c it I1c r pa rly w:)Ir 1d bc e11t i t 1ed to i 11cl emni li c nt i o n iiiider it , as Ilia t pr ov i s i o 11 recluircs a showing of iiegl i g w w wliicli licither p;irty makes agaiiist the other. The braiiclw o f the motions or Magiictic ~ u i d Grcciiwich for i ndemiiif?cation will t Iic rcfo re he dc 11 i ccl. H. FailIirc to Pi-ociire Insurance Greeiiwicli is not entitlccl t o sum~nai.y judgiticiit ;is to liability 011its C I ~ clairii S ag:iinst Mngiictic 1-brh i l m to prociix iiisurnnct.. '&Apnrty sccking suiiinial-yjiidgiii~~~~it on an alleged failurt: to prcicurc insurance based naniiiig thut party as an :idditioiial insured must dumoiistratc that a contract provisivii recluircd t h a t such iiisur:iiicc' be procured iiiid Ahhcy, LTLC, 83 A113d 650, 653 that the provision was not complied with." (Ilil3uono v Ikpt 201 I ] [internal qiiotatioii marks aiicl citatjoii oiiiiltrd].) [* 22] I-Icrc, Greenwich cloes not spccii'y the provisions in thc conlract documents h a d on linhility insurance policy. 'lliis, Grcciiwich h i l s to m;the a prima h c i c showing of cntillenicnt IO relief'oii this claim. Although Magiictic 1;iils to aclclress the cl:iiiii, the hurden did riot sliilt to it 1 do 0 so. 0 11) I.; IZ 1 It is 1icrt.by C)RI)ERED that plaiiililTs' motion Lor partial summary judgment as lo liitbi lily under C; rc c I I wi ch I ,ahor Law $ 240 (1) is graiited ;IS to clefcndantlsccond third-party plaintiff 377 L LC', a n d d eiiied as to de l'end ant/ 11-1i rd -party 1-1I ai 11 ti 1 M ag n e t ic Co 11t r i i ctio 11(1; ro LI p " s C'urp.; and it is l'iirtlicr C) I< 1 ERED that d e h c l ailt s/sec oncl t ti i rd - p a r t y I-,I :I i ti ti lis 3 77 G ree 11w i c 1 LLC: nti cl 377 ) 1 (- r i ~ n w i c l Operating ; .,> i I ,1,C's joint cross motion is grirntcd only to thc extent of dismissiiig h e complaiiit and all c,ross claiins against Greenwich Operating LLC; and the Cllcrlc shall enter coiiimoii-lnu ncgligencc claims as against said doI:ndant/tliird-party plaintiff; and it is further OI<DLI<kl) that sccoiid third-pnrly dcfcnclant KSrM Plasler, Inc.'s cross m o h n f o r siiitiiiiary j iidgincnt dismissing tlic sccoiid third-party cnmplainl a ~ i d l cross cluims as ngaiiist it is deiiicd. 21

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.