Buezo v Pratt Inst.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Buezo v Pratt Inst. 2021 NY Slip Op 30971(U) March 26, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 162512/2019 Judge: Erika M. Edwards 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 03/29/2021 10:15 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 INDEX NO. 162512/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART 11 HON. ERIKA M. EDWARDS Justice -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X SINDY BUEZO, INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 162512/2019 04/04/2021 002 -vPRATT INSTITUTE, T ISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP. and LPCIMINELLI, DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X PRATT INSTITUTE and T ISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP., Third-Party Index No. 596018/2020 Third-Party Plaintiffs. -againstRV DRYWALL CORP. and CONSTRUCTION REALTY SAFETY GROUP, INC., Third-Pa rty Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28,29,30,41,42 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT Upon the foregoing documents, the court grants Defendant LPCiminelli' s ("LPC") motion for summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff Sindy Buezo's ("Plaintiff') Verified Complaint and all cross-claims. Plaintiff brought this action against LPC and Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Pratt Institute ("Pratt") and Tishrnan Construction Corp. (" Tishman") for personal injuries she allegedly sustained on July 22, 2019, when she fell down a staircase while working as a plasterer at a construction site. Defendants Pratt and Tishman brought a Third-Party action against ThirdParty Defendants RV Drywall Corp. and Construction Realty Safety Group, Inc. Page 1 of4 162512/2019 BUEZO, SINDY vs. PRATT INSTITUTE Motion No. 002 1 of 4 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2021 10:15 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 INDEX NO. 162512/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2021 LPC now moves for summary judgment in its favor and for an order dismissing Plaintiffs Verified Complaint, all cross-claims asserted by Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, and denying Plaintiffs motion to compel, which was really a motion to strike Defendants' Answers for failure to comply with discovery demands that was subsequently withdrawn. To date, none of the other parties have opposed this motion. LPC argues in substance that dismissal is warranted because Pratt terminated its construction manager services of the site with a written Termination Notice, dated March 22, 2018, as of April 22, 2018, which was more than one year prior to Plaintiffs alleged accident. LPC further argues that Pratt took over the site and LPC was not present and had no responsibility or involvement with the site on the date of Plaintiffs alleged accident. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw, tendering sufficient admissible evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hospitals Cmp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). The submission of evidentiary proof must be in admissible form (Fr;ends ofAn;mals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067-68 [1979]). The movant's initial burden is a heavy one and on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Jacobsen, 22 NY3d at 833; William J Jenack Estate Appraisers and Auctioneers, Inc. v Rahizadeh, 22 NY3d 470, 475 [2013]). If the moving party fails to make such prima facie showing, then the court is required to deny the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the non-movant's papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 4 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). However, if the moving party meets its burden, 16251212019 BUEZO, SINDY vs. PRATI INSTITUTE Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002 2 of 4 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2021 10:15 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 INDEX NO. 162512/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2021 then the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to establish by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action or tender an acceptable excuse for his failure to do so (Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 560; Jacobsen, 22 NY3 d at 833 ; Vega v Restani Construction Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 (2012]). Upon review of the admissible evidence and without opposition, the court finds that LPC has met its burden of establishing that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor as a matter of law as its services were terminated and it had no connection to the construction site for approximately fifteen (15) months prior to Plaintiff's alleged accident. Therefore, the court grants LPC's motion for summary judgment in its favor and dismisses Plaintiffs Verified Complaint and all cross-claims against LPC. As such, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant LPCiminelli's motion for summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff Sindy Buezo's Verified Complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it is granted and the Verified Complaint is dismissed as against Defendant LPCiminelli only; and it is further ORDERED that all cross-claims against Defendant LPCiminelli asserted by Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs Pratt Institute and Tishman Construction Corp. are dismissed as against Defendant LPCiminelli only; and it is further ORDERED that said claims and cross-claims against Defendant LPCiminelli are severed and the balance of the action shall continue; and it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant LPCiminelli dismissing the claims and cross-claims made against it with prejudice and without costs to any party; and it is further 162612/2019 BUEZO, SINDY vs. PRATT INSTITUTE Motion No. 002 Page 3 of 4 3 of 4 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/29/2021 10:15 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43 INDEX NO. 162512/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2021 ORDERED that this is the Decision and Order of the court. 3/26/2021 DATE HON. ERIKA M. EDWARDS J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED GRANTED IN PART APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFERJREASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 162512/2019 BUEZO, SINDY vs. PRATT INSTITUTE Motion No. 002 D D OTHER REFERENCE Page4 of 4 4 of 4

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.