Leon v Myhyre Carpentry Contr. Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Leon v Myhyre Carpentry Contr. Inc. 2017 NY Slip Op 30233(U) January 6, 2017 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 12-10967 Judge: Joseph Farneti 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] SHOR I FOR M ORDER INDEX No. 12-10967 C/\L. No. 15-012080T SUPREME COU RT - STAI I ~ OF EW YORK I. /\ . . PART 37 - SUFFOLK COVl\TY cov~ PRESENT: JOSEPII FAR ETl Acting Justice of the . upreme Court Hon. ---------------------------------------------------------------)( NIU)() LEON and LEYU MAGDELI LEON. Plaintiffs. MOTION DATE 11-19-15 (003 & 004) MOTION DATE ]-2-16 (005) ADJ. DATE 3-3- 16 -""-""""""'-"-- - - Mot. Seq. #003 - MG #004 - MotD #005 - XMG TOMEO & MARANG/\S Anomey for Plaintiffs 1225 Frankl in Ave, Suite 325 Garden City, New York l J 530 - against - MOUND CO'M'ON WOLLA MYHYRE CARPENTRY CONTRACTING fNC .. d/b/a MY BOYS CONTRACTING, WILL MASSARO. KATHLEEN DEBENEDICTIS and PASQUALE DEBENEDICTIS, 1 & GREENGRASS L.L.P. Attorney for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff/ Second Tbird-Party Plaintiff Myhre Carpentry One New York Plaza New York, New York 10004 Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------!< MYHYRE CARPENTRY CONTRACTING INC .. d/b/a MY BOYS CONTRACTING, Third-Party Plaintiff, - against - MASSARO FR.A.Ml G C'ORP., Third-Party Defendanl. ---------------------------------------------------------------)(_ MYHYRE CARPENTRY CONTRACTING INC., d/b/a MY I30YS CO TRACTING, Second Third-Party Plaintiff, - against - P&P REMODELING, INC., Second Third- Party Defendant. MULHOLLAND, MJNION, DUFFY. DAVEY, McNIFF & BEYRER Attorney for Defendant W. Massaro and T hirdParty Defendant/Third Third-Party Pl aintiff Massarn Framing 374 Hillside Avenue Williston Park. New York 11596 AHMUTY DEMERS & McMJ\NUS Attorney fo r Second Third-Paity Dcfcndant! fb ird Third-Party Defendant P & P Remodeling 200 I. U. Willets Road Albertson, New York 11 507 [* 2] I con\ f\ lyliyn.: l ·,1rpcn1r: l11dc.\ i\ll. 12-10% 7 l'a~1.: ~ ---------------------------------------------------------------\: \:L\SS;\RU FR/\M I t i CORP_ Third Third-Part) Plaintiff_ P&P RI '. M()I WI.IN< i_ INC._ l'hird J 'hird-Pany I )cl\.:ndanl. ---------------------------------------------------------------)( llpon the rollowing paper\ Jllllll bc.:r.:J I ln 32 rc.:ad on these.: llllllilHl ~ for panial Slt lllm ;10Jll~l !lt1l\.' lll a11d ~ llllllllill'\ jud!!mc.:111 : Not ic:<:s or Mnt ions· Ord.:r to Show Ca11sc and supporting pa per~ I - 5: U - 17 : Nol ic.:1.· or Cross Mn! inn and ...11pp11rti11g p;1 p~rs 26 - 2< : /\nsw<.'ring. /\ lfalavits anti supporting papa~ 8 - l O: 18 - 25 J : R~plving /\lfalavit\ and :-upporti11~'. p<t pl'r~ I I - 12: iO - ) 2 : 0 1 Menw of' J.;rn - Mvhrc Carpc.:111rv Cn11trac.:ti1w (, - 7 ___: it is. hc.:r ORDERL'D that motion (s-:q. 1/0()]) for partial summary judgment by ddendant/third-parl~' plaintil'l!sccond th ird-party plaintiff Myhre C'arrcntry Co ntracting_ Inc. d/h/a My Bo:·s l 'nntrrn.: ling is granted. and Lill' 1.ahor Lm\· ~ 200 and common-law negligence claims in Lhc comp la int arc 11..:n:by scvcred and dismissed as asscrlcd against this defendant: and it is ORDERL.D that 111olio11 (seq. 11004) hy Jckndanl Will Ma%aro an<l third-parly dckndant!thi nl I hi rd-party plaintiff Massaro Frurnjng Corp. f() r summary .iudg1rn.:nl dism issing all cluims and cross clai111s asscrt1.·d agai nst them. and f'or judgment in ra,·or nr Massaro 1 -\aming on its thi rd thi rd-pan: claims l\ir contractual and common-law indemnity against thi rd third-party defendant P&J> Remodel i11g_ l1K. is decided as se t ltlrlh bdow: and it is li.1rther ORDER/~'/) that the cross molio11 hy plaintiffs to amcn<l their comp laint to add as a Jel'endant Massaro Framing ( 'orp. is decided as set l(irth hcl<)\\'. l'his is an action J{1 r rcrs~ma l injuries sustained by plaintiff Nildo L1.·on on Scptc111b1.T ::!8. '.2( H)()_ "hik· working on a renovat ion project al :1 house in I lunti11g1nn. 'cw Ynrk owned by lhc l)cJh:ncd ictis defendants. Plaintilrs i1 1dcx linger "'as a111putmcd while using a table s~1 w to cut cedar sh ingles for inslallal ion Oil the side or Lh<..' I k l ~cncdic.:tis dcl(:ndants' house. lkkndanl \ 1lyhrc Cnrpcntrv Cnntrn<.:ting. Inc. d/h/a My Boys Co111rncti11g ( · -M~ lil1ys") \\ <IS 1hc general rn11trnc1or l\ir the project and subcontrac11.·d 1hc framing, e:dcrior trim ~ind sid ing \\lllrk to 1liird11art) tk kndan l/th ird third-part) plaintiff Massa1\1 Framing Corp. (" Massaro 1'rmn ing" )_ which i11 turn suhrnnlrackd the siding work ln second thi rd-part) dckndant/thi rd third-party dcll:ndant P&P Renwdding. Inc. c·P&I"-). pbinti 1rs emp loyer. Plaint iff. and his wile suing derivatively_commenced this at:lion against the dcrend:mts alleging violati@:-. or Labor Law~~ 24 1 and 200. and for comnmn-law neg! igcncc. lss1 has hcl.'.11 joir11.:d h~ - all 1c [* 3] I c..:1111 ' \ lyll\ n.: ( 'a rpe111ry lndc' Nl>. I 2-J ll9(l/ dc!l:nda11ts. 1 prn11lpti11g f\ I: Boys to cn111111c11cL' a third-pan~ action agai nst \,lussarn 1 : riln1i11~. the corp1>r:1ti.: c111i1y ,,r· '' hich dekmla11t \i\-i ll i\1ass:tn) is the president a11d ~olc shan:lwkkr. 111 thL· th ird party ctu11phii111. ~ ly 13oys alkgc..:s causes ol' aclin11 against Massarn Fr;1111i11g l(lr <.:tH11 11Hll1 l;t\v anti L'Olllr;tetUa l imh:mni ficali1in, C<lll tributiOll a11d bn:ach of COil tract fo r f;1i Jun: tll procure i1 1sur;J11ce 11al11illg i\ Jy l~o~s as an additio11:1I insured . .t\ lkr issue was_ioincd. aduitio11al impkadcr ac tions wen.: e1llllllll'l1CC..:d hy My noys and tVl<tssaro Fr:1rn ing agai 1 J>&P for tllL' S:ll11L' claims SL'! rorth in the..: third1sl pctrly aeti\111. I )isuiver) hn-.; hc..:en etirnplctcd and the nolL' of' issue Jili:d. l'liL· i11sta11t 111<ltions and cn1 ss motion ensued. 1 ( 'ourt ,,·ill lirst add ress the cross motion. CPl.R 3025 (b) pro\'idcs lhal ;1p:1 may ;11m:11d ·1ie rl> or ;-;uppktnL'nt a pleading al any tin1L' h) icm·e or court ant.I that such kan· shall be free!~ g.i,·1.·n upon such ll: rms as may be just. ln tb:iding whcthn ln grant an applical it)n ltl ~tmcnd a plcatli11g, the court considers such focto rs as the delay in llloving. surprise. and significrn1l pn.:_iudicc. the biter being lhe i ltirenwst consickration (see lvlurray 1• Cizr r?f'Nell' l'ork. -D NY2d -HlO ..rn I NYS'2d 77. JI 977 J: N ussi 1· Joseph DiLemme Co11str. Corp._ 2)0 /\IY2d (l:\8. (172 YS2d ..J.l l 12d Dept l 998 1 Rose11//l(ll 1• .·ti/state : Ins. Co.. 2-18 ;\ 1)2d -l5). (i70 NYS2d 8<>2 J2d Dept jt)l)8 1 To establish uetuu l prejudice. tlh.:n.: must he ). an indication tha t a lkli.!ndant has bcc11 hindl.:red in case preparation or prevrn tcd front d1li11g sorndhing in support ol'lhc case (Loomis 1• C it•etta Corhwo ('0 11.\·tr. C<111J. . 54 NY2d 18. 444 NYS:2d 57 1 I l'Nl J: <farr~l la 1• Wing Inc. . i.l<) /\D.ld 7<>.l. 3.1 NYS:ld '287 1 o 2d Dept 10Hi J). Based on the afon.:menlionc<l prin<.:iplc.s. plaintiffs' cross motion is granted. T hl· proposed amend1111.:nl to 1hc caption docs not l'undamcntally change the nature \)r the ullq.>,atiom; \\.hich 111us1 he proven by lhL plaintiffs Ill' diminish the dckns1.·s available to ll11.' tkl\:nuants (sa Nassi v Dil,emnu! · Co11str. Corp. , 250 /\D2d 658 , 6 72 NYS2d 43 I). Plainli ITs are not seeking kJ\ c to add any new theories or liabil ity or Lo amend the allegations in the complaint, hul only to add Massaro 1-raming as a direct dckndanl. Massaro Framing has heen scrvcu "vith the irnplcad~r actions and all prior pleadin gs as required under CPLR I 007. Moreover. the parties have not <.kmo n~-.;lral<..:d that plaintin~; mere lateness in s1.·cking the amcnd1rn.:nt was a harrier to granting the motion ( .W!l! Faftey v Co1111~r r? (011tario. 44 '-JY2d 93-L -Hl8 NYS2d 31-J. I 197~ I: Garafola 1• Wint? Inc.. s1117ru). I kspi tc lhe fi1 thn1 the lhn:c-yc;1 L·t r stnluk tir li111il<1tions lws e>-pircd ag<1inst prnposcd di reel dcf"cndant Massaro Fr;11ninl,!.. a direct t:laim <ISSerted against a lhird-parl)' del\:ndanl rl'la[CS back LO the date orS(.'l"\'iCL' orthl' third-pa rt y COlllJllUi llt f"or statute or lirni1atio11s purposes (se'£' Dt!ff.r I' llorto 11 M em orial H osp.. ()() N Y:2d -J.7"1. -l97 NYS'..:d X90 JI 985 J: S chuler v &'rand 1 etm Bldg. Corp. . 118 1 Dld 6.l.l. ·FN N YS2d 786 J:2d Ikpt I98fl JJ. Till· H \ third-party complaint served upon Massaro Framing was timely interposed. Further. there is no smprise 11r prejudice to Massaro Fram ing as it has been an ac ti"c participant a t e:1d1 1 :. 1 ~ r. a11 lws n.x:ei vt.:d all d discover) 1.·xcl1angcd to dale. Therefore. Massaro Frum ing had actual notice o I' plainli ITs" puLcnl ial direct claim and ca1111ot proclaim surprise or prej udice as a result or the grant ing of the cross mnlil1n. I !encl.'. pla intiffs arL· grankd kaw lo arnrnd the caption with Massaro as a direct dcfi:mlanl. :ind :"vlas-.;an1 haming is di rected to m·cL'pl -;en· ice 111" the amended pkad ings in lhc forn1 :.1t1achcd to lhc cHlSS 111\lliun. Pursuant Lu a stipulation dakd /\pri l ..J. ~O 1-t executed hy all parties. the claims ~md crnss claims asscrll:d aga inst the hl)llle1\\\"11Crs. the lklkncdictis defendants. were discontinued \\'ith prejudice. 1 [* 4] I L'1111 ' \I~ h) rL· ( arpL·1111) lnd1..·' \.11. I~- I 09() 7 J>aµL' -l ,\ s tu the 111otion hy 'A· ill :V1assmo and i\ l;. 1 ssarn 1 : r~ 11ni11 tJ, (cnlkctin:l;- ··r--.Jassaro dl'l \:11d;11 1ts"'). \\il l iVh1Ssdro arg11cs that all dai111.., and cniss clai111s a:-SL'l'l.L'd against him 'ihould hc sun1111;1rily di ... mis:-.L'd <I' al all tillll'S hl' 4.11.:tcd in his <.:apm:il)' <I'> pn:sidelll of i\ fnSS4.ll'll ha111ing <tlld thus C;JJllH>I he held pers111iall: liabk. :vlas:-.aro ha11li11g argues that ii is cntitkd LP judgment on its claim-: against I'& P lor i1Hk11111ilication and co11trihuti1)1l and hn:ach 11r c111Hract 1(11· fail me lll procurc insurarnx naming it"' :111 addition~il i11s11rL·d . . \ corporatio11 ha.., ii separat..: l..'\ish:1H.:I..' l'rn111 that l)l° ib o!'liCl:r:- and sliarl..'h1l ldl:rs. ;ind till..' (lllllplainl is dL'\ Oid ul';1J1) alkg<llitlllS SllrJicielll IO picn_:i.: the 1.:0l'pPratt: \'t:il ti f '.\)assarp h illllillg lll J"\:ai.:h Will 1\ lassaro in his i11d i,·id1 1 rnpacily (see Maller <if' Morris 1• New York State Dept. <~/Ta.rntio11 (~ al Fin .. 82 l\ Y2d 135. (103 \J YS2d 807 1l(>(n ]: Jl/om/011e 1• Lane. 106 .t\l)Jd 1062. 1)(>(> \JY S2d 1<)·1 l~d I kpl 2013 I). l'vl orcnwr. 1111.:rL' has hem no C\ idcncc presented Lhat Will Massaro should be personal!: l1ahk. It i~ true that ir \\'ill i\1assaro so dorninatcd thc m:tiYities <1l'1hc corporation. picrcing ol'the corporate wil \\Ould he permitll.:d: IHH\C\'cr. dominance or a corporation. -;landi ng alonc i!> insufficit:nl (.\l'c Matter ofMorri.\· 1 Ne ll' York State. 82 , Y2d I 35, 603 1 YS2d 8071199) I: .· l :ad 1· 270 5th Real~r Corp .. -lfl \l))d 728. 8-l8 NYS2d 688 12d Dept 20071: ' "" ulso Fil'st Capital . ts.\ C'f ,l/gt., Ju e. 1· .V.. I. l'art11ers. L.P. , 300 J\Dld 11 2. 755 1 YS2d (i] 11st lkpl 2002 I). I !en;. plaintiff..; havc nol olkred a11: basis or any evidt:ncl..' or suc h dominance (.1 zad 1 270 5th Real~1· Corp .. Slf/>l'll) . Tht:rcliin.:, gran1t.:d is 1111.: hranc:h or the mo tion hy thl' Massaro <.kkndants r· r summary judgment di smi ssi ng tile case against o indi,·idual tkkn<la11t Will Massaro. 1 1 I urning 10 the motion hy lfy 13 o~s. it i'i argued that it cannot be IK·ld liable undcr 1.ahor Lt\\ ~ 200 or for common la\\ 1ll:gligcncc as it did not supen i:-.e or comrol thc plai11tiff..., \\ork . 1.ahor I ;m ~ 200 is a codilicatiun of the co111111011-ht\\ July imposed on O\\.ner'>. eontractnrs. and their agents lo pnl\·ide wor"-crs "·ith a rcas11nahl) su f~ plac.:c to \\ork (Ri:-;.uto 1• LA. Weuger Co11tr. Co .. 91 '-IY:2<l 1-l.) . (170 N YS2d 81(1j 19(>31: Comes'' New York State F:lec. & Gas Corp. . 82 Y2d 87(), (109 YS2d 1<18 11993 1 Man111e:. 1• / . & M l>e1 Part11ers, Inc.. 1-l 1 I\ I))ti ()<)-l. 35 YSJd 700 I:2d Dept 2016 I: Rt~jas 1· : •. Sclnvart-;.. 74 /\ Dld 10.f(). 104(l. 903 NYS2d 484 l2d lkpl 2010 1). I\ cause ol'action sounding in <1 'iolati11n or Labor I .a\\ ~ 200 nr common-lu\\' negligence may ari sl.' from a dang~·rous or dckct iw co11di1io11 on the prL·misL·'i. or lhc manner in \\hich the work \\<IS pcrrormed (see Pilato 1• 866 U.N Pla-;.a f\·soc.. LLC. 77 t\DJd (1-l-L 909 YS2d 80 j2d Dept 20101: Ortega" Puccia. "7 1 \l>3d 5-l. 8(>(1 \.JYS.::!d .~~J I 2d I kpt 2008 j). \\ hcrt:. a-; here. the clnim arises nut l'r the mean' and method' 11-;.:d t(l pL·rl(1rn1 1lw \\llr\... 1 ~ l311ys 111:1~ he hl..'ld liuhk fo r common-la\\ negligence or .a' iolation ol' I .abor I ,il\\ ~ 200 0111~ il ii had .. the authority to supervise llr control the performance or thl' work .. ( Pilato,, 866 ( '.N. Pfu-;.a ·h'rnc., ! .J.C. ,·11pm nl ()-l(1: Ortega 1 Puccia. s11pm <ll 61 ). 1 Plainti IT tcsti lied Ihm a 11 thl' tools he used to instal 1 the cedar sh ing.lc sidi ng WI..' re provided b> P&P. hi s cmplover. and his 0111> supcn·isnr at till' project sitL' \\<IS Josh (ircenlit:ld. P&l" s l(1rL·111an. l'lailltiff rurlhLT tc..;\j(jL·d he llll[;- rL'CL'i\\:d i11"lrl1Cli1111..; fr<llll .lo:-.h. ttlld that Joo,;h tlircclcd IJjlll alld the other P&P L'mpil1~L'L'S a-, tu \\ht:rc to i11!--tall 1he cedar shingk~. Plaimiff testilicd that he \\a:-. e~plicitl: direclL'd hy .lo!>h ( irccnfidd to rnt the cedar shingk..; u~ing the subject table sa\\ . Based on this Ll'-;ti11111n~. f'vly Hnys 1.:;m11llt he held liable under l.ahor I. a\\~ 200 or for com11HH1-la\\ ncgligcnci.:. I hercfo rc. gra1Hl..'d is lhc 1 til)n hy My Boy for partial su mmary j udgrncnl dismissing these clai1 ns. no [* 5] l .cnn ' I\ t: h~ re ( ' aq11..'1llr~ lmk\ '\.11 1.2- l(Jl)h / :\:-;to th\.' pnninn nl' lll L' Mas-.;ani dL'li.:nda11ts" lllt1tio1 liir _iud g11 11.:11 t i11 l~I\ nr nr \ ,lassan> 1 : r~11ni1 1 µ 1 011 its third-part: cla im li.lr imk11111ificati1>11. :-i11cc IHI linding ha'i :ct ht:cn 111adL' \\ ith respect to tk panic': fault. if .in:. it i:- pn.:nwlltrL' to dctLTminc claim-.; li.ir either <:ommon-lm' or nrnt ractual :11dc11111i lic:ttil>ll ( \t'l' Itri Brick <.~ Co11crl!te Corp. 1• Aet1w Cas. & Sur. Co .. 8t) '\ Y '\I 78<1. <158 \ Y\.2d 9o> J l 1)(>71: D-ickrn11 1· Cross Nem~ r /Hix, Ille.. 75 /\ l)~d 519. 906 N YS2d .~8..J. J .?.d Ikpl 20 Ill J ). l"hcrl'l(ll'c. sunmwry .iudgn11.:n1 must he denied . I he I !old I lmmkss 1\g.1\:cmrnt rrnl'li.:n:d by l\la-.;saro Fram ing. \\'hich alsll includt:s a prm ision requ iring J>&J> to procure liability insurance naming Mas..,anl ham inµ a-; (lll additional insured doi..:-. 11ot ..,pccilically n.:li.:r lo the subjct.:t rcnmation pniiL'CI, raising. a11 issue 0 1 1 ~1ct. Morl.'.n' L'r... Jal part~ scding · -;ummary judgmL'lll based on an alkged failure to procure insurance naming that party as an additional insured 111u-.,t dc111011str~1tc that a t:o111rac1 prm isio11 required that such in-.;urancc be procured and that Lill· prm i-.; in11 "a.., rwl colllpiiL·d '' ith .. (st'e 1 l1arq11e-:. 1• L & ill /)e1'. Parr11ers, Jue.. Sll/J/'O al 70 I: Gi11ter 1 F/us'1i11g Terr., LLC. 12 1 /\D3d X..J.0. 84.f, l)<)) NYS2d <)5 1 Dept 20 14 I). l'hcrcl'nn.:. th is bran<:h 0 1 2d · the Massaro dcli.:ndants' motion is also denied. 1 \i..:cordingl:. lhl' 11wtio11 h: :\I:- hrc ( ·arp1..·ntry Contrat.:ting. Inc. d. ha 1\.1:- Bu~ s t'n111rac1i11g 1(11· pa rt ia l "Llllllll my j tldl,'lllL'lll is grnnll.:d. The p1>rtion or the molion by till' Massaro dcl\:11cJanls llll' Sllllllll<lr) !..'.ranted ;md all claims and c1\1ss claims nssertcd <.1!.!Hinst him ari..: .jud!.!.mcnl in l~1H1r or \\ 'ill \/lassaro is .. .... .. hcrch: Sc\'l'rl'd and dismissed: th(.'. remainckr (1f"this motion is denied . The cross 111oti1>11 h: plaintiffs is granted and tht: caption is amended to includt: t\lassaro l·rnming Corp. as a ddi.:ndant. ~ l)utcd: January 6. 2017 ~;ph Farneli cting .Justice Supreme ('nun 1• F I NA L DISPOSITIO ~ - NO q ·1 /\I. Dl~POSITIO;\

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.