Ledesma v 25 Broadway Office Props., LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Ledesma v 25 Broadway Office Props., LLC 2020 NY Slip Op 30120(U) January 13, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 158705/2014 Judge: Margaret A. Chan Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. MARGARET A. CHAN IAS MOTION 33EFM Justice -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 158705/2014 MOTION DATE 05/15/2019, 06/17/2019 DANNY LEDESMA, Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. -v25 BROADWAY OFFICE PROPERTIES, LLC,WW 25 BROADWAY LLC,WEWORK COMPANIES, INC., (MS) 005 006 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X 25 BROADWAY OFFICE PROPERTIES, LLC Third-Party Index No. 595313/2015 Plaintiff, -againstWW 25 BROADWAY LLC, WEWORK COMPANIES, LLC Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X WW 25 BROADWAY LLC, WEWORK COMPANIES, INC. Second Third-Party Index No. 595186/2016 Plaintiffs, -againstUNITED ALLIANCE ENTERPRISES LLC Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 197, 198, 199 were read on this motion to/for PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 195, 196, 200 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 1 of 10 Page 1of10 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 In this Labor Law matter, plaintiff Danny Ledesma moves in MS 005 pursuant to CPLR 3212 for: (1) partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 in favor of plaintiff against defendants 25 Broadway Office Properties, LLC ("25 Broadway"), WW25 Broadway, LLC ("WW25"), and WeWork Companies, Inc. ("WeWork") 1 on the issue of liability; and (2) setting this matter down for a trial as to damages (NYSCEF #140- Notice of Motion). Defendants oppose the motion. For their part, defendants/second third ·party plaintiffs 25 Broadway, WW25, and We Work move in MS 006 for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on their claims for common law indemnification, contractual indemnification, and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against second third-party defendant United Alliance Enterprises, LLC ("United") (NYSCEF #157 - Notice of Motion). United opposes the motion. The Decision and Order is as follows: FACTS On August 27, 2014, plaintiff was employed as a carpenter for United, a construction company (NYSCEF #150 - Plaintiffs tr at 10). As of that date, plaintiff had been employed in the role for about a month. For the duration of plaintiffs employment with United, he worked on a complete renovation and build-out of an office space on the fifth floor a building located at 25 Broadway ("premises" or "building") in the city, county, and state of New York (id. at 18, 20). Defendant 25 Broadway owns the premises and leased them to defendant WW25 on August 8, 2013, for a five-year term (NYSCEF #154 - Lease). WW25 is a We Work entity (NYSCEF #152 - Bernhard tr at 12, 23). WW25 contracted with United to perform construction and renovation work on the fifth floor of the premises to create office space for a We Work project (id. at 12-13, 23). We Work's director of development, Bryan Bernhard, acted as WW25's representative and had direct oversight over the project's scheduling, budget, and the quality of the work performed (id. at 7, 11-12). Plaintiffs work at the premises consisted of framing and hanging drywall (NYSCEF #150 at 19-20). Plaintiff worked exclusively on the fifth floor, seven days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (id. at 21). Plaintiffs supervisor was United foreman Fernando Mendez Savedra, who provided plaintiff with daily instructions as to which tasks plaintiff was assigned to complete (id. at 15, 20, 25). On August 27, 2015, at approximately 8:40 p.m., Savedra instructed plaintiff to use screws to fasten a piece of stop-metal to the concrete ceiling at a pre-marked 1 Defendants attached a signed Stipulation of Discontinuance dated November 1, 2016 executed between the parties as to defendant We Work that does not appear to have been uploaded prior to this motion (NYSCEF #189 Stipulation of Discontinuance). 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 2 of 10 Page 2of10 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 location (id. at 26-28). The piece of stop-metal was approximately twenty-inches long, two-inches wide, and weighed approximately one-half pound (id. at 29-30). Plaintiff claims that he had never previously done that type of work (id at 29-30). In order to reach the ceiling, plaintiff used a seven to eight-foot A-frame ladder (id. at 35). Savedra provided the ladder, which had the letters "UA" written on it in marker (id at 36, 50). Plaintiff described the ladder as made of metal, red, and lacked any type of rubber shoes or feet at the bottom (id at 37-38). Plaintiff had been using the same ladder for the full day for framing work (id at 37-38). Plaintiff was working alone, and there was no one holding the ladder for him (id. at 27). Plaintiff claims that he set up the ladder on the concrete floor, which he described as somewhat rough (id at 51-52). Plaintiff testified that he cleaned the floor prior to setting up the ladder and climbing it (id. at 52-53). Plaintiff further testified that he told Savedra that he thought he needed a safety harness to perform the task, but Savedra declined the request (id at 54-55). Plaintiff further claims that harnesses were not available at the job site (id at 54). At the time of the accident, plaintiff was standing on the ladder one rung below the top platform (id. at 50). Plaintiff used a cordless drill to drive the screws through the metal and into the concrete ceiling (id at 32-33). Plaintiff claims that in order to do so, he looked up at the ceiling and applied pressure to the bottom of the drill to drive the screws in the ceiling (id. at 59). Plaintiff claims that while he did this, the ladder moved and plaintiff fell to the concrete floor below, sustaining a fractured right ankle and injuries to his back (id at 34, 99-100). DISCUSSION Summary Judgment Standard A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp, 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Once a showing has been made, the burden shifts to the parties opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (see Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). On a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (see Vega v Restani Constr. Corp, 18 NY3d 499 [2012]). In the presence of a genuine issue of material fact, a motion for summary judgment must be denied (see Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 [1978]; Grossman v Amalgamated Haus. Corp, 298 AD2d 224, 226 [1st Dept 2002]). "A motion for summary judgment, irrespective of by whom it was made, empowers a court to search the record and award judgment where appropriate" (GHR Energy Corp. v Stinnes Interoil Inc., 165 AD2d 707, 708 [1st Dept 1990]). 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 3 of 10 Page 3of10 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (MS 005) Plaintiffs complaint makes claims for violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241(6). Plaintiffs instant motion seeks partial summary judgment solely on his § 240 claim. Plaintiff is entitled to judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim. Labor Law §240(1) provides that: "[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents ... in the ... altering ... of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor ... ladders ... and other devises which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed." "The statute imposes absolute liability on ... owners and contractors whose failure to 'provide proper protection to workers employed on a construction site' proximately causes injury to a worker. Whether a plaintiff is entitled to recovery under Labor Law§ 240(1) requires a determination of whether the injury sustained is the type of elevation-related hazard to which the statute applies ( Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 NY3d 1, 7 [2011] [internal citations omitted). The "core premise [of the statute isl .. that a defendant's failure to provide workers with adequate protection from reasonably preventable, gravity· related accidents will result in liability" (id). Plaintiff need not demonstrate that a ladder was defective or failed to comply with applicable safety regulations (see Ocana v Quasar Realty Partners, L.P., 137 AD3d 566, 567 [1st Dept 2016]). Instead, the decisive question is whether plaintiffs injuries were a direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant height differential (see Runner v New York Stock Exchange, Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 603 [2009]). As such, it is well settled that where an elevated work surface fails to remain stable or erect and results in the injury of a worker, there is prima facie liability under §240(1) (see Aburto v City ofNew York, 94 AD3d 640 [1st Dept 2012]; Nenadovic v P. T. Tenants Corp., 94 AD3d 534, 534-535 [1st Dept 2012]). In particular, "the failure to properly secure a ladder, to ensure that it remains steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240(1)" (Montalvo v J. Petrocelli Construction, Inc., 8 AD3d 173 [1st Dept 2004]). Here, there is no dispute that the ladder shifted, and plaintiff fell to the floor. There is no dispute that United failed to provide a spotter to stabilize the ladder and United did not provide any safety equipment to harness plaintiff. There is thus no issue of fact regarding the nature of plaintiffs accident and he is entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law§ 240(1) claim regarding liability.2 2 The court notes that the motion is denied as to defendant We Work as it is out of the action pursuant to the Stipulation of Discontinuance. 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 4 of 10 Page 4of10 [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 Defendants make multiple arguments to defeat plaintiffs motion. First, defendants claim that there is a question of fact regarding whether plaintiff caused his own accident. Defendants points to Savedra's testimony about plaintiff being on the top step of the ladder, which is prohibited, when he fell (NYSCEF #192 Savedra EBT at 6-7). This is the only piece of evidence defendants offer to create a material issue of fact. However, Savedra's testimony was that he heard that plaintiff was on the top step of the ladder from plaintiffs co-workers. Defendants' evidence is pure hearsay, and "[a]lthough hearsay may be used to oppose a summary judgment motion, such evidence is insufficient to warrant denial of summary judgment where ... it is the only evidence submitted in opposition" (Briggs v 2244 Morris, L.P., 30 AD3d 216 [1st Dept 2006] [quoting Narvaez v NYRAC, 209 AD2d 400 (2002)]). As such, the hearsay evidence cannot be the basis for denial of plaintiffs motion. Indeed, plaintiff followed the instructions of his supervisor and used the provided equipment in the expected manner. Plaintiff cannot be the proximate cause of his own injury when plaintiff follows the instructions of his supervisor and does not take a "foolhardy risk" on his own initiative (Harris v City ofNew York, 83 AD3d 104, 110 [1st Dept 2011]; see also Pichardo v Aurora Contractors, Inc., 29 AD3d 879 [2d Dept 2006]). While defendants also attempt to make an argument that plaintiff could have used scaffolding that was on-site, there is no evidence that plaintiff knew such equipment existed. As such, there is no basis to find that plaintiff is the sole proximate cause of his accident. Next, defendants argue that plaintiff is required to provide expert testimony indicating that a harness device was required at the subject location. This argument is without merit. Expert testimony is only required when the subject matter is "beyond the ken of the typical juror", or when the issues involved are of "such scientific or technical complexity as to require the explanation of an expert in order for the jury to comprehend them" (Hendricks v Baksh, 46 AD3d 259, 260 [1st Dept 2007]). Defendants have not made a showing that an expert is needed to opine on whether a harness is required at the elevation in question here (see Coyne v Consolidated Edison Co. ofNew York, Inc., 44 Misc 3d 1221[a] at *4 [Sup Ct New York County 2014]). As such, there is no basis to deny plaintiffs motion for failure to provide expert testimony. Second Third-Party Plaintiffs' Indemnification Claims (MS6) Second third-party plaintiffs 25 Broadway, WW25, and We Work move in MS6 for summary judgment on their claims for contractual indemnification, common law indemnification, and breach of contract against second third-party defendant Untied. United's Untimeliness Argument 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 5 of 10 Page 5of10 [*FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 United argues that third-party plaintiffs' motion should be denied at the outset as it is untimely. Plaintiffs Note of Issue was filed on March 15, 2019. Pursuant to the Preliminary Conference Order, motions for summary judgment were due within 90 days of the filing of the Note of Issue (NYSCEF #6 Preliminary Conference Order). Third-party plaintiffs filed the instant motion on June 14, 2019, one day late. United argues that this is a sufficient reason to deny the motion. United's argument is rejected. Third-party plaintiffs' delay is de minimis and United suffered no prejudice due to the slight untimeliness of the motion. Indeed, United itself was granted multiple extensions to file late opposition to the instant motion. As such, the one-day delay in filing the motion is not a sufficient basis to deny it. Contractual Indemnification Claim "Summary judgment is appropriate on a claim for contractual indemnification where ... [the contract] is unambiguous and clearly sets forth the parties' intention that a [contractor] indemnify the [owner] for injuries sustained" (Roddy v Nederlander Producing Co. ofAmerica, Inc., 44 AD3d 556 [1st Dept 2007]; see also Hong-Bao Ren v Gioia St. Marks, LLC, 163 AD3d 494, 496 [1st Dept 2018]). In Labor Law cases, a party seeking contractual indemnification must be found free of negligence (see Rodriguez v Heritage Hills Soc., Ltd, 141 AD3d 482, 483 [1st Dept 2016]). The pertinent terms of the contract between third-party plaintiffs and United are as follows: "To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor [UNITED] shall indemnify, defend, save and hold the Developer and the Entire Design Team and all officers, employees, and agents of any of the foregoing, Developer [WW25], Architect ... Consultants and each of their respective direct and indirect members, partners and principals, disclosed and undisclosed, and their respective trustees, officers, directors, agents and employees (herein collectively called "Indemnitees") harmless from and against all liability, damage, loss, claims, demands and actions of any nature whatsoever (including attorney's fees and disbursements) which arise out of or are connected with, or are claimed to arise out of or be connected with: (1) The performance of the Work by the Contractor ... (2) Any accident or occurrence which happens .. .in or about the place where the Work is being performed ... (3) The use, misuse, erection, maintenance, operation of or failure of any machinery or equipment Gncluding.. .ladders ... ) whether or not such machinery or equipment was 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 6 of 10 Page 6of10 [*FILED: 7] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 furnished ... to the Contractor." (NYSCEF #178 Construction Contract at Art. 9). WW25·United A party is entitled to contractual indemnification for damages so long as the intention to indemnify can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and surrounding facts and circumstances (see Drzewinski v Atlantic Scaffold & Ladder Co., 70 NY2d 774, 777 [1987]). Here, there is a clear indication that the parties intended to indemnify the third·party plaintiffs. Nevertheless, United argues that the motion should be denied on the basis that third ·party plaintiffs did not affirmatively prove that they did not have notice of the alleged condition of the ladder. United claims that due to Bernhard's (WeWork's director) weekly visits, plaintiff had notice of the potentially defective ladder. However, the evidence does not indicate that third·party plaintiffs had control or notice of plaintiffs activities at the construction site. United, not third· party plaintiffs, controlled the means and methods of plaintiffs work at the construction site. There is simply no evidence indicating that the third·party plaintiffs had any notice of the alleged defect. As such, third ·party plaintiffs have established that they are entitled to indemnification here. There is a clear indication that the parties intended to indemnify third·party plaintiffs from a ladder-based injury, the third·party plaintiffs are free from negligence, and plaintiffs injury arose exclusively from his work on behalf of United. Accordingly, third·party plaintiffs are entitled to contractual indemnification from United. Common Law Indemnification "Implied, or common-law, indemnity is a restitution concept which permits shifting the loss because to fail to do so would result in the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other" (McCarthy v Turner Construction, Inc., 17 NY3d 369, 374·375 [2011]). In order to establish common-law indemnification, an owner is required to prove "not only that they were not negligent, but also that the proposed indemnitor ... was responsible for negligence that contributed to the accident or, in the absence of any negligence, had the authority to direct, supervise, and control the work giving rise to the injury" (Benedetto v Carrera Realty Corp., 32 AD3d 874, 875 [2d Dept 2006]). A party is entitled to common·law indemnification where there is no proof of any negligence or supervision on its own part, and where the proposed indemnitor was responsible for supervision (McCarthy, 17 NY3d at 377·378). As discussed above, third ·party plaintiffs are free from negligence in this action. United provided the ladder and supervised plaintiffs activities at the 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 7 of 10 Page 7of10 [*FILED: 8] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 worksite. As such, third-party plaintiffs are entitled to common· law indemnification to the extent plaintiffs claims are successful in this matter. Breach of Contract Third-party plaintiffs claim that Untied failed to procure insurance for their benefit. The pertinent terms are as follows: "Article 10. "The Contractor ... shall obtain and submit to Developer, before undertaking any part of the Work .. .indicating coverage from companies, in amounts and on such other terms as provided for hereinafter and in the Insurance Schedule annexed to this Contract as Exhibit "F" ... The Contractor also shall submit, to the Developer an endorsement to The Contractor's Commercial General Liability Policy evidencing Developer, and the other entities identified in Exhibit F or designated by The Developer each as an Additional Insured .... I. Insurance Requirements: A. General Liability: 1. Limits: $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 aggregate. 2. Additional Insured: WeWork Companies, Inc.; 25 Broadway Office Properties LLC; 25 Broadway Realty LLC .... E. Umbrella Liability: 1. Limits: $25,000,000 per occurrence; $25,000,000 aggregate. 2. Additional insured: Same as above. II. Contractual Provisions B. Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the additional insured for any and all claims for damages arising from the work performed by the contractor .... D. Owner, Construction Manager or General Contractor (as applicable), and all other patties required by United Alliance Enterprises, LLC, shall be included as insureds on the CGL, using ISO Additional Insured Endorsement ... .lt shall apply as Primary and Non-Contributing Insurance ... " (NYSCEF #178). 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 8 of 10 Page 8of10 [*FILED: 9] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 Even when a contractor procures insurance, if the insurance procured is not in compliance with the terms of the contract, it has breached its obligation (see Lima v NAB Construction Corp., 59 AD3d 395, 397 [2d Dept 2009]). Third-party plaintiffs claim that United's umbrella policy has "failed/refused to date to concede that its policy is applicable to the incident in question" (NYSCEF #158 -Third-Party Plaintiffs' Aff in Support at if4). However, there is no evidence that United failed to procure the umbrella policy or that it will not cover plaintiffs accident in the event that the general policy does not cover plaintiffs damages. As such, this branch of third ·party plaintiffs' motion is meritless and the breach of contract claim is dismissed. United's Prematurity Argument United argues that third-party plaintiffs' motion is premature as a finder of fact has not yet concluded if anyone has breached a duty to plaintiff. However, as discussed above, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its Labor Law§ 240(1) claim is granted and therefore liability in this matter has been determined. It is therefore appropriate to adjudicate third-party plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment at this time and United's argument is rejected. United's Argument that the Notice to Admit is Improper United claims that a Notice to Admit that it signed is improperly relied upon here as it provides a legal conclusion that plaintiff was acting in the course of his employment with United and that Untied agreed to all of the terms of the contract. However, this argument is of no moment as the court did not need to rely upon the Notice to Admit establishing that plaintiff was working within the scope of his employment with United and the contract between United and third ·party plaintiffs was valid. As such, this argument is rejected. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its Labor Law§ 240(1) claim is granted. The branches of third ·party plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on its claims for common· law and contractual indemnification are granted. The branch of third-party plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on its claim for breach of contract is denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against 25 Broadway and WW25 is granted; it is further 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 9 of 10 Page 9of10 [*FILED: 10] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/14/2020 12:20 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 203 INDEX NO. 158705/2014 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/14/2020 ORDERED that the branches of third-party plaintiffs' 25 Broadway, WW25, and We Work motion for summary judgment regarding common-law and contractual indemnification against third-party defendant United are granted; it is further ORDERED that the branch of third-party plaintiffs' 25 Broadway, WW25, and We Work motion for summary judgment regarding breach of contract against third-party defendant Untied is denied and dismissed; it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the November 1, 2016 "Stipulation Discontinuing Action as to Defendant/Second Third-Party Plaintiff, WeWork Companies, Inc."; it is further ORDERED that the first third-party action between 25 Broadway, WW25, and We Work is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the July 5, 2016 Stipulation of Discontinuance (NYSCEF #36); it is further ORDERED that this matter be set down for a trial on damages on plaintiffs Labor Law § 240(1) claim and for liability as to plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 and § 241(6) claims; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment as written. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. 1/13/2020 DATE CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: MARGARET A. CHAN, J.S.C. ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 158705/2014 LEDESMA, DANNY J. vs. 25 BROADWAY OFFICE Motion No. 005 006 10 of 10 0 D OTHER REFERENCE Page 10of10

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.