Alvarado v SC 142 W. 24 LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Alvarado v SC 142 W. 24 LLC 2022 NY Slip Op 30027(U) January 7, 2022 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 156474/2019 Judge: Paul A. Goetz 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 01/07/2022 03:16 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88 INDEX NO. 156474/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. PAUL A. GOETZ Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X ANGEL ALVARADO, 47 INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, 156474/2019 10/25/2021 003 MOTION SEQ. NO. - V - SC 142 WEST 24 LLC,MCSAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC,OMNIBUILD CONSTRUCTION INC., DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X SC 142 WEST 24 LLC, MCSAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC, OMNIBUILD CONSTRUCTION INC. Third-Party Index No. 595751/2019 Plaintiffs, -againstSKY MATERIALS, INC. Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------X SC 142 WEST 24 LLC, MCSAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC, OMNIBUILD CONSTRUCTION INC. Second Third-Party Index No. 595711/2020 Plaintiffs, -againstRELIANCE SAFETY CONSUL TING, LLC Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY Plaintiff commenced this labor law action after he slipped and fell on mud in an excavation pit of dirt on September 11, 2018. The day prior to the accident, it had rained heavily, and so the pit was very muddy. Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment on his Labor Law 156474/2019 ALVARADO, ANGEL vs. SC 142 WEST 24 LLC Motion No. 003 1 of 4 Page 1 of4 [*[FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2022 03:16 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88 INDEX NO. 156474/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2022 241(6) claim insofar as it is premised on a violation oflndustrial Code Section 23-1.7(d). Defendants/third-party plaintiffs oppose the motion and cross-move for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint and summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against third-party defendant Sky Materials, Inc., plaintiff's employer at the time of the accident. Industrial Code Section 23-1.7(d) provides that "[e]mployers shall not suffer or permit any employee to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition. Ice, snow, water, grease and any other foreign substance which may cause slippery footing shall be removed, sanded or covered to provide safe footing." Here, the plaintiff has met his prima facie burden to show a violation of this provision by submitting testimony showing that he was working at the bottom of an excavation pit at the time of the accident, which was very muddy due to the heavy rain from the prior day. In their opposition, defendants/third-party plaintiffs, as well as the third-party defendant, do not controvert this testimony. Rather, they argue that since the pit was made of dirt, the mud on which the plaintiff slipped cannot be considered a "foreign substance" within the meaning of this provision. However, whether or not the mud is considered a foreign substance is irrelevant as plaintiff has demonstrated that the first part of the provision was violated, namely that he was permitted to work on a slippery floor. See Velasquez v. 795 Columbus LLC, 103 A.D.3d 541 (!81 Dep't 2013); Ternes v. Columbus Centre LLC, 48 A.D.3d 281 (1 st Dep't 2008). Further, while the dirt and earth on which plaintiff was working was an integral part of the surface, the rain which caused the muddy conditions was not and constitutes a foreign substance under this provision. See Sweet v. Packaging Corporation ofAmerica, 297 A.D.2d 421 (3d Dep't 2002) (precipitation causing slipper surface was not integral part of the work site); compare with Galazka v. WFP 156474/2019 ALVARADO, ANGEL vs. SC 142 WEST 24 LLC Motion No. 003 2 of 4 Page 2 of 4 [*[FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2022 03:16 P~ NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88 INDEX NO. 156474/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2022 One Liberty Plaza, 55 A.D.3d 789 (2d Dep't 2008) (wet plastic surface which caused plaintiff's accident was specifically designed to be wet and thus was an integral part of the work site). Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on this claim. However, it is premature to dismiss defendants' affirmative defense of contributory negligence at this juncture. In light of this ruling, defendants/third-party plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment is academic. Squicaray v. Con. Edison Co. of NY, Inc., 2017 NY Misc LEXIS 4060, 2017 NY Slip Op 32277 [U], aff'd 171 AD3d 416 (1 st Dept 2019) (holding "[s]ince the court properly granted partial summary judgment in favor of the [plaintiff on his] Labor Law§ 240 (1) claim, [defendant's] remaining arguments, concerning plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, are academic", citing Fanning v Rockefeller Univ., 106 AD3d 484,485 [1 st Dept 2013]). Further, to the extent that defendants seek dismissal of the claims against defendant MC SAM Hotel Group, they have failed to submit any admissible evidence in support of this relief. Finally, defendants/third-party plaintiffs request for summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against plaintiff's employer, third-party defendant Sky Materials Inc., must be denied. In support of this relief, defendants/third-party plaintiffs rely on a contract which was submitted by plaintiff in support of his motion for summary judgment and which was introduced without any testimony authenticating this document. Since the contract is not authenticated as required by CPLR 4518(a) and it is inadmissible and cannot form the basis to grant summary judgment ( Clarke v. American Truck & Trailer, 171 A.D.3d 405, 406 [1 st Dep't 2019] [holding agreement between parties, annexed to an attorney affirmation, was not authenticated and therefore was not admissible and not an appropriate basis on which to grant summary judgment]). Accordingly, it is 156474/2019 ALVARADO, ANGEL vs. SC 142 WEST 24 LLC Motion No. 003 3 of 4 Page 3 of 4 [*!FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2022 03: 16 PM! NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88 INDEX NO. 156474/2019 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/07/2022 ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) claim against defendants SC 142 West 24 LLC and Omnibuild Construction Inc. is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendants' contributory negligence affirmative defenses is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that defendants/third-party plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. 1/7/2022 DATE CHECK ONE: APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C. ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED • NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 156474/2019 ALVARADO, ANGEL vs. SC 142 WEST 24 LLC Motion No. 003 4 of 4 • • OTHER REFERENCE Page4 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.