Court Opinion

ID: 9942011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 14:07:30.740203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:35.599721
License: Public Domain

Rolle v JCDecaux St. Furniture N.Y., LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30474(U)
                   February 13, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 508333/2017
                Judge: Patria Frias-Colón
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: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 11:12 AM                                                   INDEX NO. 508333/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024

              SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
              COUNTY OF KINGS                Part 20
                                                                     X
              Lamont Rolle,
                                                                         Index # 508333/2017
                                                    PLAINTIFFS,          Cal. #s 14 & 15 Mot . Seq. #s 5 & 6

                                    -against-                            DECISION/ORDER

              JCDecaux Street Furniture New York, LLC, CEMUSA            Recitation as per CPLR §§ 2219(a) and/or
              NY, LLC., The City of New York, MTA Bus Company,           3212(b) of papers considered on review of
                                                                         this motion:
              MABSTOA, The New York City Transit Authority, The          NYSCEF Doc #s 115-135; 155-158 by Plaintiff
              New York City Department of Transportation and             NYSCEF Doc #s 136-150 by Defendants
              Metropolitan Transportation Authority.                     JCDecaux, CEMUSA, and City Defendants

                                                    DEFENDANTS.
                                                                     X
         HON. PATRIA FRIAS-COLÓN, J.S.C.

                Upon the foregoing cited papers and after oral argument on November 8, 2023, pursuant to
         CPLR § 3212, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement is DENIED and Defendants JCDecaux
         Street Furniture New York, LLC (“JCDeceaux”1), The City of New York and New York City
         Department of Transportation’s (“City Defendants”) Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is
         GRANTED as to City Defendants and DENIED as to Defendant JCDecaux/CEMUSA.

         BACKGROUND

                This personal injury action arose from a May 12, 2016 accident. Plaintiff alleges that while
         power-washing a bus shelter on the corner of Smith and Livingston Streets in Kings County, a glass
         panel fell on his head causing him to fall and become unconscious. When Plaintiff regained
         consciousness, he was being transported to the hospital.

                Pursuant to Labor Law §§200, 240 (1) and 241 (6), Plaintiff asserts entitlement to summary
         judgment because had it not been for the unsafe work conditions created by Defendants, he would not
         have been injured. The City Defendants and Defendant JCDecaux oppose Plaintiff’s motion and cross-
         move for summary judgement contending Plaintiff has no claim against them pursuant to Labor Law
         §§200, 240 (1) and 241 (6). Defendants MTA Bus Company, MABSTOA, The New York City Transit
         Authority, and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Transit”) did not take a position.

         DISCUSSION

         Although Labor Law §200 is not applicable to the City Defendants it is applicable to Defendant
         JCDeceaux.

                    On a motion for summary judgement, the moving party has the burden to make a prima facie

          1
              Defendant JCDecaux was formerly known as CEMUSA.

                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 11:12 AM                                                    INDEX NO. 508333/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
                                                                                                Index # 508333/2017

         showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law and tender sufficient evidence to demonstrate
         the absence of any material issues of fact. Voss v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 22 N.Y.3d 728 (2014) (citing
         Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2.d 320 [1986]). If a moving party fails to meet their burden,
         summary judgment must be denied “regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.” Id. (citing
         Vega v. Restani Constr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 499 [2012]). Summary judgment is a “drastic remedy” that
         should not be granted where there is any doubt about the existence of triable fact or an arguable issue.
         Marino v. Jamison, 189 A.D.3d 1021 (2d Dept. 2020).

                For Labor Law §200 to apply, a plaintiff must show that the owner of a property or the general
         contractor working at a property supervised said property or had actual or constructive notice of an
         unsafe condition. Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494 1993. Here, Plaintiff failed to
         show that Labor Law §240 (1) is applicable to the City Defendants as they do not directly supervise
         the maintenance of bus shelters2. Such maintenance is left to the general contractor and the sub-
         contractor3. Additionally, the City Defendants were not on notice (actual or constructive) regarding
         any defect of the subject bus shelter4. Generally, any defects in bus shelters are directly reported by
         the subcontractor to the contractor5. Here, the City Defendants neither directly supervised nor were
         aware of a defect prior to the Plaintiff’s alleged accident.

                 Labor Law §200 may be applicable toward Defendant JCDeceaux. Plaintiff put forth sufficient
         evidence to establish that there are genuine triable issues of fact regarding whether Defendant
         JCDeceaux played a supervisory role in the maintenance and cleaning of the subject bus shelter. Since
         Labor Law §200 does not apply to the City Defendants, Plaintiff’s Labor Law §200 complaint and all
         crossclaims are dismissed with prejudice as to them. Plaintiff’s Labor Law §200 complaint shall
         proceed against Defendants JCDecaux/CEMUSA.

         Defendants did not Violate Labor Law §240 (1).

                 Labor Law §240 (1) mandates that “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents, except
         owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, 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”.
         For §240 (1) apply, Plaintiff must demonstrate he was engaged in protected work and that Defendants
         exposed him to an elevation height risk without implementing additional safeguards meant to prevent
         workplace injury.

                 Plaintiff’s reliance on Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc., 65 NY2d 513 (1985)
         to support his position that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies in the instant matter is misplaced. The Zimmer
         plaintiff was entitled to recover damages because, as required by Labor Law §240 (1), he fell from a
         height while engaged in protected work and was not provided with additional protective gear. In
         Rocovich v Consol. Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509 (1991), the Court of Appeals cited to the legislative
         history from Labor Law §240 (1), when it found Defendant liable pursuant to this statute because

          2
            NYSCEF Doc. #144 at 71:23-71:27.
          3
            Id. at 25:3-12 and NYSCEF Doc. #145 at 11:21-12:9.
          4
            NYSCEF Doc. #145 at 40:13 - 41:12.
          5
            Id. At 29: 6-11.
                                                                   2

                                                                 2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 11:12 AM                                                   INDEX NO. 508333/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
                                                                                               Index # 508333/2017

         plaintiff was working in a protected environment and safety devices were not provided. The instant
         case is distinguishable from Zimmer and Rocovich. Here, Plaintiff was performing routine
         maintenance6 at street level7. When a plaintiff “cannot show that he was exposed to the usual and
         ordinary dangers of a construction site, and not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor
         Law §240 (1), the plaintiff cannot recover under the statute. Toefer v Long Is. R.R., 4 NY3d 399, 405
         (2005) citing Rodriguez v Margaret Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, Inc., 84 N.Y.2d 841, 843 (1994).
         Since Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he was working in a protected environment with a heightened
         elevation risk, he cannot recover against under Labor Law § 240 (1). Therefore, this branch of
         Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion is denied.

         Labor Law §241 (6) is not applicable in this case.

                 Labor Law §241 (6) requires that “[a]ll areas in which construction, excavation or demolition
         work is being performed shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and
         conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed therein
         or lawfully frequenting such places.” “Labor Law §241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable
         care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons
         employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work
         is being performed.” Sheldon v Weinstein Enters., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 32459[U] Sup. Ct, Kings
         County (2018) citing De Jesus v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 159 AD3d 951 2d Dept. (2018).

                  Contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendants here were not required to ensure additional
         safety measures were in place prior to Plaintiff power-washing the bus shelter. The glass panel that
         fell to the ground was no higher than eight feet, and no harness or securing was necessary because the
         power-washing was being performed at street level8. Plaintiff relied on Rivas-Pichardo v 292 Fifth
         Ave. Holdings, LLC, 198 AD3d 826 2d Dept (2021) to support his assertion that the heightened risk
         from elevated portions of the subject bus shelter necessitated the use of specialized equipment which
         was not provided to him. That case is distinguishable from the instant facts because the Rivas plaintiff
         was struck by bricks that were being thrown down a chute that had been placed in an elevator shaft,
         from higher floors; a height much more than the 8-foot maximum9 height of the subject bus shelter.,
         The bricks in Rivas descended from multiple floors above the plaintiff, whereas Plaintiff here was hit
         by a glass pane at ground level and not higher than 8 feet from the ground. As a result, Plaintiff’s
         branch of motion pursuant to Labor Law §241 (6) is denied.

         Defendants Motion is not time barred.

                Plaintiff filed his Note of Issue on May 17, 202310. Defendants filed their Cross-Motions on
         September 6, 202311, 112 days after the Note of Issue was filed. CPLR §3212 (a) allows a Cross-
         Motion to be filed no later than 120 days after the filing of a Note of Issue. 112 days falls within that
         timeframe, consequently Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment was not untimely.

          6
            NYSCEF Doc. # 143 at 14:23-19, 105:14-106:2.
          7
            Id. At 88:13-21.
          8
            NYSCEF doc 150, https://www.nycstreetdesign.info/furniture/bus-stop-shelter.
          9
            Id.
          10
             NYSCEF Doc. #135.
          11
             NYSCEF Doc. #137.
                                                                   3

                                                                 3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/13/2024 11:12 AM                                              INDEX NO. 508333/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 160                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2024
                                                                                           Index # 508333/2017

               All other relief not expressly addressed herein is denied.

               This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

         Date: February 13, 2024                                     ___________________________
               Brooklyn, New York                                    Hon. Patria Frias-Colón, J.S.C.

                                                          4

                                                        4 of 4
[* 4]