Loretta v Split Dev. Corp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Loretta v Split Dev. Corp. 2014 NY Slip Op 33557(U) December 1, 2014 Supreme Court, Westchester County Docket Number: 62670/2013 Judge: Sam D. Walker Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] To commence the statutory time for appeals as of right (CPLR 5513[a]}, you are advised to serve a copy of this order, with notice of entry, upon all parties. · SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK WESTCHESTER COUNTY PRESENT: HON. SAM D. WALKER, J.S.C. ----------------------~------------------~~-------------------------x VINCENT LORETTA and JOHNNA LORETTA Plaintiff(s), Index No. 62670/2013 DECISION & ORDER Seq.2, 3,4 -against- SPLIT DEVELOPMENT CORP., Defendant{s). ----------~----------;----------~-~-------~---------------~-------x The following papers were read on plaintiff's order to show cause for a pre-judgment order of attachment pursuant to CPLR § 6201 (3); on plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the defendant on the issue of liability on his causes of action under section 240 (1) of the Labor Law; and on defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs, seeking dismissal of the complaint: PAPERS Order to Show Cause/Affirmation/Affidavit/Exhibit A-I Plaintiff's Notice of Motion/Affirmation/Affidavits(2)/Exhibits A-E Memo rand um of ·Law in Support Defendant's Affirmation in Opposition/Exhibits 1-5 · Plaintiff's Reply Affirmation/Affidavit/Exhibits A-C Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum of Law Defendant's Cross Notice of Motion/Affirmation/Exhibits A-B Defendant's Reply Affirmation NUMBERED 1-12 13-21 22 23-28 29-33 34 35-38 39 [* 2] This action is to recover for personal injuries Vincent Loretta ("Vincent") allegedly sustained when he fell from a ladder while working on a construction site on May 22, 2012. Vincent was employed by Armstrong Plumbing & Heating, Inc. ("Armstrong") and was perform}ng construction work on a single family home located at 5 Hugh Hill Lane, Irvington, New York owned by Mark and Tara Steinberg. The Steinbergs had purchased the property from Split Development Corp. ("Split") and entered into a contract with Split to construct the home. Split in turn hired Armstrong to perform the plumbing work on the home. Plaintiffs allege that Vincent had been installing the plumbing system for three to · four weeks prior to the accident and on the day of the accident, he was installing waste pipes in the wa(I and the twelve foot ceiling of the garage. Plaintiffs allege that to accommodate the installation of the waste pipes, Vincent was required to stand on a ten I ' foot A-framed ladder, which was provided by Armstrong, and placed on the concrete floor in the garage. Plaintiffs further allege that Armstrong did not provide any safety equipmertt for Vincent to access the ceiling to perform the plumbing work and that the ladder was not secured to prevent it from moving or toppling over. Plaintiffs contend that while Vincent was inserting one waste pipe into another by pushing upward, the ladder toppled over causing Vincent to fall approximately six feet to the concrete floor of the garage, resulting in injuries. Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a summons and complaint alleging I negligence and vJolations of Labor Law § 200, 240, and 241. Pursuant to stipulations, the plaintiffs amended the complaint several times, dismissing their action against Rachelle 2 [* 3] I. Shapiro, Ross B. Shapiro, Denardo Development Corp. and Joseph Denardo Development, Corp. and adding Split Development Corp. as a defendant. Defendant opposes the order to show cause seeking a pre-judgment order and the summary judgment motion. The defendant argues that the plaintiffs have failed to meet I their burden on the order to show cause and on the motion that there is no violation of Labor Law§ 240(1) as the defendant provided proper protection to plaintiff in the form of the ladder, that the plaintiff can only speculate on what caused him to fall and that the plaintiff refused to use the scaffold which was available and which his employer had instructed him to· use. DISCUSSION Order of attachment pursuant to CPLR § 6201 CPLR § 6201 states in pertinent part that: An order of attachment may be granted in any action, except a matrimonial action, where the plaintiff has demanded and would be entitled, in whole or in part, or in the alternative, to a money judgment against one or more defendants, when: 3. The def~ndant, with intent to defraud his creditors or frustrate the enforcement of a judgment that might be rendered in plaintiffs favor, has assigned, disposed of, encumbered or secreted property, or removed it from the state or is about to do any of these acts .... Further, the plaintiff has to show that there is a cause of action, probability of success on the merits, that one or more grounds for attachment in CPLR § 6201 exist and that the amount ~emanded exceeds all counterclaims known to the plaintiff see CPLR § .!. • 6212. 3 [* 4] The plaintiffs contend that it is more than probable that they will succeed on the merits, since the facts supporting the plaintiffs' claims have been admitted by the defendant or are undisputed and the defendant has not made any counterclaims. The plaintiffs further GOntend that the defendant lacks· insurance· coverage and is intentio~ally transferring its assets for the purpose of frustrating the judgment to be entered against it; by liquidating its assets. The defendant opposes the motion and argues that the plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud or frustrate enforcement of ~n anticipated judgment and the plaintiffs have submitted no proof in admissible form,'of their likelihood to succeed on the merits. This Court finds that the plaintiffs have not met the requirements for a pre-judgment order of attachment. The plaintiffs have not presented evidence of intent to defraud or frustrate an anticipated judgment and "the mere removal, assignment or other disposition of property is not grounds for attachment. Computer Strategies v. Commodore Bus. Machs., 105A.D.2d 167, 173, 483 N.Y.S.2d 716 (2d Dept. 1984) see also Corsiv. Vroman, 37 A.D.3d 397, 829 N.Y.S.2d 234. "ltmustappearthat[the]fraudulent intent really existed in the defendant's mind." Id. Liquidation or disposal of business assets is not a presumption of fraud. Mitchell v. Fidelity Borrowing LLC, 34 A.D.3d 366, 827 N.Y.S.2d 107 (1st Dept 2006) .. Here, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any fraudulent intent on the part of the defendant. The plaintiffs' attorney contends that he informed the defendant's attorney that any transfer of property would be deemed fraudulent pursuant to Article 10 of the Debtor Creditor Law and that the d~fendant subsequently transferred property. However, 4 [* 5] the letter states that any transfer of property ''without fair and valuable consideration" will be deemed to be a fraudulent transaction. The plaintiff has not shown that the defendant transferred the properties without fair and valuable consideration and therefore has not shown that the defendant had/has an intent to defraud its creditors or frustrate the enforcement of ajudgment that might be rendered in the plaintiffs favor. Motions for summary judgment This summary judgment motion by plaintiffs seeks to establish liability as a matter of law against the defendant due to the alleged unsafe working conditions at the premises where plaintiff was employed on the date of his accident. Plaintiff seeks a determination that pursuant to Labor Law §240 the defendant failed to provide a safe work site and that failure was a substantial factor in causing the accident. The summary judgment cross motion by the defendant seeks dismissal of the plaintiffs' action, since the plaintiff is unaware of what' caused him to fall and is speculating and the plaintiff refused to use the scaffold available to him, which his employer had instr.ucted him to use. A party m6ving for summary judgment must assemble affirmative proof to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Zuckerman v. City of N. Y., 49 N.Y.2d 557, .(1980). "As general rule, a party does not meet its burden in moving for summary judgment by pointing to gaps in its opponent's proof, but must affirmatively demonstrate the merit of its claim or defense". Doe v. Orange-Ulster Bd. of Co-op. Educational Services, 4A.D.3d 387, 388 (2d Dept., 2004), quoting, Larkin Trucking Co. v. Lisbon Tire Mart, 185 A.D.2d:614, 615 (4th Dept.1992). It is well settled that summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should not be granted where there is any doubt about the existence of a triable issue of fact. The proponent of a motion for summary judgment carries the 5 [* 6] initial burden of production of evidence as well as the burden of persuasion. Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320, (1986). Thus, the moving party must tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate as a matter of law the absence of a material issue of fact. Once that initial burden has been satisfied, the "burden of production" (not the burden of persuasion) shifts to the opponent, who must now go forward and produce sufficient evidence in admissible form to establish the existence of a triable issue offact. The burden of persuasion, however, always remains where it began, i.e., with the proponent of the issue. Thus, "if the evidence on the issue is evenly baianced, the party that bears the burden must lose." Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994) see also, 300 East 34th Street Co. v. Habeeb, 248 A.D.2d 50 [1st Dept.1997]. Section 2~0(1) of the Labor Law, entitled "Scaffolding and other devices for use of employees", statks in pertinent part that: "All contractors and owners and their agents, ... , in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed." "The purpose of this statute is to protect workers and to impose the responsibility for safety practices on those best situated to bear that responsibility" [Ross · v. Curtis-Pa/mer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 500, 618 N.E.2d 82, 85, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 52 (1993)); the duty imposed under Section 240(1) is nondelegable and owners, ' 6 [* 7] contractors, and their agents are liable even when they exercise no control or supervision over the work of the injured employee. Id. The legislative purpose behind this enactment is to protect "workers by placing 'ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor' (1969 NY Leg is Ann, at 407), instead of on workers, who 'are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accident' (Koenig v. Patrick Constr. Co., 298 NY 313, 318 [1984] )" (Zimmer v. Chemung County Perfo17!1iilg Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, 520(1985). Section 240(1)" 'is to be construed as liberally as.may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was thus framed'. (See Quig/eyv. Thatcher, 207 N.Y. 66, 68 [1912]"; Koenigv. PatrickConstr. '· "corp., 298 NY . 313, 318 [1984]) .. The section imposes a duty that is nondelegable, so that contractors ana owners are liable whether or not they supervise or control the work and if the accident occurs due to the violation of the statute, the plaintiff's own negligence is not a defense. Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 76, 823 1 N.E.2d 439, 441 (2004). Additionally, "the availability of a particular safety device will not shield an owner' or general contractor from absolute liability if the device alone is not sufficient to provide safety without the use of additional precautionary devises or measures". Riffo-Ve/ozo v. Village oi Scarsdale, 68 A.D. 3d 839, 840, 891 N.Y.S.2d 418 (2d Dept. 2009). j'lt is still necessary, however, for the plaintiff to show that the statute was violated and that the ·violation proximately caused his injury." Cahill, 4 N ..Y.3d @ 39. u[W]here a plaintiffs own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident, there can be no liability. n Id. 7 [* 8] While the· plaintiffs have established that the defendants owe a duty of care to maintain a safe workplace, the issue of whether the duty has been breached in violation of Labor Law §2~0. is a disputed question of fact. "In this case, plaintiff was working on a ladder and thu~ subject to an 'elevation-related risk"' Riffo-Velozo v. Village of Scarsdale, 68A.D. 3d@ 849 quoting Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y2d 555, 561 [1993]. "The ladder did not prevent plaintiff from falling; thus the 'core' objective of section 240(1) was not met" Id. However, the determination to use an extension ladder when the plaintiff must ' balance himself without use of either hand when installing the pipe and with only one hand when ascending and descending the ladder requires a further and factual assessment in order to determine whether there has been a violation of the Labor Law. The determination of the type of protective safety device required for a particular job depends on the foreseeable risks of harm presented by the nature of the work. The statute requires that the device p~ovided must allow the plaintiff to work at an elevation without falling and allow him to safely ascend and descend from the necessary height. Potter v. NYC Part.nership Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., 13 A.D.3d 83, 786 N.Y.S.2d 438. There is also a dispute as to whether the defendant made available to the plaintiff, the proper scaffolding equipment or adequate safety devices to prevent the ladder from slipping and the plaintiff failed to avail himself of such. The plaintiff claims that no other device was made available to him and the defendant claims that a scaffolding device was 1 available for use yirhen needed and that the plaintiff was made aware of this. Credibility issues, of course, are not properly resolved on a summary judgment motion. See, S& A Realty Management Corp. v. Prestigiacomo, 306 A.D.2d 339 (2d Dept. 2003). •. \· 8 [* 9] There are issues of fact and both the plaintiffs' motion and the defendant's motion for summary judgment are DENIED. The parties are directed to appear in Courtroom 1600 on January 6, 2015 at 9: 15 AM on for a settlement conference. The foregoing shall constitute the decision and order of the Court. Dated: White Plains, New York December 1, 2014 ON. SAM D. WALKER, J.S.C. 9
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.
