Jafargian v IAC/Interactivecorp

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Jafargian v IAC/Interactivecorp 2012 NY Slip Op 31863(U) July 12, 2012 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 111069/08 Judge: Saliann Scarpulla 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. - NNED ON 711712012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PART U 19 MOTION DATE -V- MOTION SEQ. NO. The following paperr, numbered I to Notice of MotlonlOrder to Show Cause , were read on this motion to/for q h /x -Affldavlts - Exhlblta noy \t 1 <J [I N d 4 . IWW. IW a ) . Anawerlng Affldavlts - Exhlblts Replying Affldavlts Upon the foregolng papem, It I ordered that thls motlon Is s 3 Dated: - 1. CHECK ONE: ..................................................................... 0 CASE DISPOSED ........................... MOTION IS: nGRANTED u DENIED 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0SETTLE ORDER 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: uDO NOT POST ? W NON-FINAL DISPOSITION nGRAN ED IN PART 0OTHER 0SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT nREFERENCE [* 2] DECISION ANI) OHDER P 1ii i nt i ff, Papers considci-ccl io review of this molioii for ~~lllJlllill~y ,jiidginenL: Nolice of Molion. . . . . , , , , , I A f l i in Opp , , , , , , , , , . , -2, 3 Ikplies . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5 TION. SA1,IANN SC:AKI-'IJT,LA, 1.: In this action to rccovcr damages for pcrsonnl iiij~iries, clcf'ciidaiits 1 1 ' T W Ventures, L I L ' ("H'I'KI; Vcntiircs") and Georgetown I 9t'1Strcct Ilcvclopmciil, T,T,C ("Gcorgctown") (collwtively "dcfiridmts") inove for ( 1 ) suriiiiiaiyjudgniciit disiiiissirig thc plaintiff Stcvc Jafiirgian's ("J afarigan") I ,abor 1,aw $240 uust: ol'action asscrlcd against thcin, and (2) I [* 3] suiiiinary irclgmeiit on their second cross claim for contractual indciimification against the codcfcndant Turner C onstrirction Company coriclitiond jirclgiiicnl oii (LL 1uriicr ), or, in the alternative, l or thc second cross claim. This case arises out ol lwo separatc work-site accicleiils, at ; building I imclel- constniction at 5 5 5 Wcsl 18 Strccl, in Manhattali. TTTRI: Ventures was tlic owner or the work-site. Georgclown was the developer of the project, arid Turncr wiis the construction nianagcr. I lie accidents occirrred during the course ol .lafarigan s cmploymcnt fbr 1 Irlmn Foiindaticjn Engineering T,LC ( l.Jrban ). On August 19, 2005, Jal arigan slipped oil soiiic rchat-, and on August 26, 2005, Jnfarjgm tripped on wood clehris clcscribcd as two-by-four caiiscs ol ;ictioii for coiiiinoii law negligence, and for violation of Labor I AW $$ZOO, 2 O 1 ), aiid 24 1 (6). 4( I I )cfcndmts H I KF Ventures aiid Ckorgctown IIUW iiiove for suinniary juclgiiicnl, q i i i n g that Labor 1,aw $240 does not :~pplylo h i s case beciiuse .lahrgiaii did not fill ;is the resuh of ii gravity rclatcd risk. They fiirthcr argue that they are entitled 10 contractual 111 o ppos i ti on, .Ja fii rg i nn argu cs that s u r i i iii :iry j 11 iiicr i 1 i s pt-em atiire, dg fii rt he r discovcry is necessary, 1,nbor Law $240( I ) docs apply bcca~iso fcll fi-oni aii clcvatcd hc ramp, and t1i;it even if the Lnbor I ,nw $240( 1 ) claim is disr~iisscd, Jat:,trgiaii s other claims ;ire prcscrved. lii opposition, l iiriier argues that s m i n a r y .j irdgiiieiil is preiiiatirre as there [* 4] has been 110 fincling ol'ncgligcncc against cithcr Turner or I.Jrban lo trigger indcmnificati o i l . Discrissiori 'I'he proponelit of a summary sjudgmeiit motion must iiiakc B prima facie showing of cntitleiiient to jiidgment S I: ii matter of law, teiideriiig sufficicnl evidencc to eliminate m y riiatcrial issue of fiict from thc case. Simi//,v v. A.11 Iridus., fx.,N.Y.3d 733, 735 IO (2008). The hjlurc to make such showing requircs dcnial of'the motion, rcgardlcss of the 85 I ( 19XS). C)ricc [his showing has bceri imcle, Iiowcvcr, thc burden shifts to thc pnrty opposing ~ h molioii for suiiiin;~ry~judgmciil produce evideritiaiy prool' in aclinissiblc c to lbr~ii sul'licieiit to cstnblish the cxistence or material isxucs of i'rict which require n trial o l the action. Mcrc coiiclusioiis, expressions of hope. or unsulxtantiatecjl allegatioiis arc Lahor I ,;iw $240(1 ) provides that b d d i n g owners and contractors: i I i t hc crc c: t i on, den1o I it i on, rep airing , a I t er i 1 I g , pa i 11ti ii g , c 1c ~ 11g or p oirit ing i i of' ;I building or structure shall furiiish or erect, or C ~ L I S to be lilriiishcd ur C crcclcd 11~1- pcrt'onnance of such labor, scaffcrlding, hoists, stays, laddcrs. the slings, limgers, tilocks, pdleys, hraces, irons, rnpcs, arid otlicr dcviccs which shall he so coiislructecl, placed ancl operntcd as to give propcr protection IO a person so employed. Wlicllicr a plaiiitiff is cntitled to recovery ui-tcler J ,ahor J ,aw $240( I ) requires n deterriii~intion whetlier tlw injury resulted ol' hiii the type ol'elevaiion related hn7arcl to which tlic statirte applies. liocwvich v. C'oiisolirhtrtJ Edisoii C'o., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 5 13 3 [* 5] ( I W l ) , 'I lie reach ofT,abor 1 ,aw $24O( 1) includcs sitch specilk gravity-related accidents iis a worlw falling from : height I or k i n g struck by a Mliiig object that was improperly hoisted o r inadcquatcly seciircd. Ross v. ('urlis-l'ubnc~ Hydw-L~!'lcc~. 8 1 N. Co., Y.2d 494 (1993). Section 240( I ) applies to hoth "falling worker" arid "Gilling object" cases. N.Y 757 (3008).111 deciding tlic applicability oFI,abor I,aw $24O(1) to a constriiction .3d site nccidcnl, the Ixy is whether the worker's injuries were thc direct result of'a hilure to providc adcquate protcctiori against a risk arising l i . 0 1 ~n physically significant elevation ~ differential. R Z ~ H E I N c w York ,Stock Exch., IHC., N.Y.3d 599 (2009). v. " I3 Here, HTRF Veiiturcs and Georgetown liave established that Jafiirgim's injrirics wcrc not prosiiiiatcly causecl by thc type of elcvation related hazard to whicli T A o r Law an iss(ie of thct. Thereforc, thc motioii tbr summary j~rdgrnenldisiiiissing the I .abor Law $240( 1) claiiii asscrted against H'HW Veriturcs and Georgetown is granred. 'I'iirniiig lo the jt~c1eiiinilic;iticii issue, paragraph 6.0. 1 of 'I'~~riicr's construction niaiiagel- agreement with the ddendnnts provides: To thc fullest cstcnl perniittcd by law, the C'onstruction Manager hereby agrccs to defeiid, indemnify and hold harmlcss . .. the iiiclcmnitccs ..., li-om and against all liability, damages, losses, demands, claims aiicl actions for pcrsoiid injury, hodily iiljury (inclucling dcath) to any person, including tlic ConstrLiction Mnringcr, Trade C'nntrnctor, Su b-track C'ontra&r OI'a i i y of tlicir employees, aiicl propcrty damage (to propcrty that is other thaii the Work itsclf), including damages flowing or arising thul-cfi-om,to tlic cstent resultirig li-om the iiegligcnt or wrongful acts or oi7iissic)ns of thc 4 [* 6] C onslri1ctio1i Man;iger, Trade Contractor, Sub-trade Contractor, anyone directly o r indirectly employed by thcm or anyone fcjr wliosc acts they may be liablc ... Liibor I,aw $200 cocliiics i owner s and general contractor s coiiiinon-law duty to m provide workers with a safe place to work. Rizziitto v. L A . W~~n~g:o. C o., 9 1 C ontr. N.Y .2d 343, 352 (1998). 1,abor Law $241(6) reyuircs owiicrs and contractors to provide reasonable and adcqirute protcction and snfcty for workcrs and to comply with the specii-ic safety rrrles and rcgiilatioiis promdgatecl hy Ihc C ommissioncr of tlie rkpartmeni o f 1,ahor. I3ecause T,abor Law $24 1 (6) imposes a iioii-clel~g~?hle on propcrty owncrs, a duty plaiiititf need not show that the clefendants exercised supervisioii or control over the worksitc in order to establish ;a riglit of recovery. Nonetheless, cornpnrativc negligence reniains ii cogriiznhlc af l?rmative d c l n s c to a I ,abor I ,aw $24 I(6) causc of action. St. Louis v. T ~ V V I N. Elbn, 16 N.Y.3cl 41 1 (201 I ) . of I l liemotion h r suimmaiy judgment on the clefendants contractual indemnilication cross claim against I urner is dcnicd. lhe contract betwcen the parties rcqLrircs Tirrncr to iiicleninify thc dekiiclants for claims arisiiig out tlie perfomiance (of I ur~icr s work, bill only tu lie cttcnt cairsed by ! ¬IC ncgligcnt iicts or omissions of Turner, its sub-contractors, o r myotic directly or iridircctly employed by theiii. I lius, the intI~itJni~~~;ltioll provision is trigcrcd il ihe ncciclcnt was ca~rscd the iiegligence of either rmier, l i r b m , or their by cmployees. I hc iiiotion papers are devoid of proof of either Turner or 1.Jrbaii s 5 [* 7] indeiiiriiticatio~~ claim at this tiiiic. C.'olc 1 ' I I o t m ? s fi7r the //orneless I/I,SI,, lnc.., 93 A.D.3d 593 ( I ?' Dcpt. 2013). Accordingly, it is hereby OKDEREI) that ckl'enclants IITW Veiitui-cs, LLC and Georgetown 19"' Strcct Ikvclopnieiit, l,l,C's motion for suiiiniary j irdgineiit disinissing the plainti 1.1' Steve Jafiugiaii's T,abor LAW $240( 1) cause ol'action nssci-tcd against tlieiri is granted, and that cause of actiun asscrtcd iig;iinst thciii is dismissed; m d it is lirrtlicr I > that ckl.kiicIants I I T W Ventures, LLC and Gcorgctown I c)"' Strect ,C's molion for summary .j ~idgriicnt their secoiicl cross claim Tor on contrac~iinlindcmui I'icntion against 'I'urncr Constrirctiori Company or, in the altcrnative, lor an order graiitiiig ;-I conditional jiidgineiit on the second cross claiiii, is dcnicd premature. This coristitu tcs the decisiori and o r d u of tlic cow-1. 1 at cd : 3 Ncw York, New York .luly(&. 201.2 iis

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.