Court Opinion

ID: 9958682
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:08:54.403997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.942665
License: Public Domain

Tiscione v Ford Found.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31134(U)
                      April 5, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 152143/2020
                 Judge: David B. Cohen
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.
                                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 152143/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 401                                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                             PART   58
                                                                                     Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
                                                                                                 INDEX NO.         152143/2020
             PETER TISCIONE,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.       001
                                                         Plaintiff,

                                                 - V -

             THE FORD FOUNDATION, HENEGAN CONSTRUCTION,
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             CO., INC., THORNTON TOMASETTI, INC., GENSLER
             ARCHITECTURE DESIGN & PLANNING, P.C., LEVIEN &
                                                                                                          MOTION
             COMPANY, INC., UNITED STRUCTURAL WORKS, INC.,

                                                         Defendants.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
            41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 60,128,203,204,206,209,224,225,226,227,
            228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,
            249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261,262,263,264,265,266
            were read on this motion to/for                                        SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER

                      In this Labor Law action, defendant Henegan Construction, Co., Inc. (Henegan) moves,

            pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(3), (a)(7), and 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint

            as against it.

                                                     I. Factual and Procedural Background

                      This case arises from an incident on June 18, 2019, in which plaintiff was allegedly injured

            after falling into a pit while working at a building located at 320 East 43rd Street in Manhattan

            (the subject building), which was owned by defendant The Ford Foundation (NYSCEF Doc

            No. 38). Plaintiff commenced this action against defendants alleging violations of Labor Law

            §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) (Doc No. 38). Henegan joined issue by its answer dated May 27, 2020,

            denying all substantive allegations of wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses (Doc

            No. 39). Henegan moves for summary dismissal of the complaint as against it, which plaintiff,

             152143/2020 TISCIONE, PETER vs. FORD FOUNDATION                                                       Page 1 of 9
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 9
[* 1]
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 152143/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 401                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            The Ford Foundation, and defendant Thornton Tomasetti, Inc. (Thornton) oppose (Doc Nos. 224,

            241, and 253).

           A. Deposition ofPlaintiff(Doc Nos. 41 and 42)

                   At his deposition, plaintiff testified that, on the day of the incident, he was employed by

            nonparty Cushman and Wakefield (Cushman).          He was responsible for general maintenance

            throughout the subject building, which included maintaining "heating, ventilation, air

            conditioning, plumbing, and sprinkler systems[s]," ordering replacement materials and

            components, and replacing items like ceiling tiles, faucets, filters, and pumps. When items like

            pumps needed replaced, he would check to see if one was available in the spare inventory kept at

            the subject building, otherwise he would order a replacement from a supplier.

                   When plaintiff was initially hired by Cushman, the subject building was undergoing

            construction helmed by Henegan as the general contractor. However, he was hired separate and

            apart from the renovation project, and he neither worked with nor assisted Henegan with any of its

            work. He only provided Henegan with information about the subject building's systems, given his

            familiarity with them.

                   On the date of his accident, although the renovation project was still ongomg, all

            construction work on the C level floor had been completed. After entering the subject building

            and performing his routine checks, which he documented in a logbook, he and a coworker had to

            replace some pumps in a pump "pit" on the C level floor, which were installed at some time before

            he was hired by Cushman. The pit was covered by metal grates, with an access door in one comer.

            Inside the access door was a wooden ladder to descend into the pit. Replacing the pumps was not

            a complex job and was something he had done "a couple of dozen times" before, although he had

            not previously replaced the newly-installed pumps.

             152143/2020 TISCIONE, PETER vs. FORD FOUNDATION                                    Page 2 of 9
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 9
[* 2]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 152143/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 401                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                    Plaintiff and his coworker unbolted a section of the grates away from the area with the

            access door, creating an opening into the pit. They then descended down a fiberglass ladder they

            had lowered into the opening. After replacing the pumps, the men ascended the same fiberglass

            ladder and exited the pit. Plaintiff's accident occurred when the two men went to reattach the

            metal grate. Holding the grate with his fingers through its thin openings, plaintiff attempted to

            align one edge of the grate with the floor after his coworker had aligned the opposite edge. The

            opposite edge became misaligned, causing the grate to fall into the pit. Since plaintiff's hand was

            inside the grate, he was pulled into the pit with it, falling several feet. With the help of his

            coworker, he exited the pit through the access door and the wooden ladder.

                    Plaintiff was never told to only enter the pit through the access door or to not remove the

            metal grates. A safety harness was available, but he was never directed to use it nor was there a

            place to tie off any harness.

            B. Deposition Testimony of The Ford Foundation (Doc No. 43)

                   A director of property management testified on behalf of The Ford Foundation that it

            owned the building at the premises, which consisted of fourteen floors -     eleven above ground

            and three below ground labelled A, B, and C, respectively, with C being the lowest level. Cushman

            was the property manager responsible for daily maintenance and repairs, with multiple employees

            working daily at the subject building. Cushman was the sole entity responsible for managing the

            work its employees performed, which included plaintiff's work maintaining the mechanical

            systems at the subject building.

                   A construction project renovating the subject building began in 2016, with Henegan

            serving as the general contractor. All major construction was completed in 2018, before the date

            of plaintiff's accident, and no construction was taking place on the C level floor at the time of

             152143/2020 TISCIONE, PETER vs. FORD FOUNDATION                                     Page 3 of 9
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 9
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 152143/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 401                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            plaintiff's accident. Plaintiff's work replacing pumps on the C level floor was not related to any

            of the remaining construction being completed at the subject building, and the pumps at issue had

            an inventory of spares stored at the subject building for routine maintenance and repairs.

                     Although the director did not witness plaintiff's accident, he was informed of it by a

            Cushman employee, and confirmed the accuracy of an incident report generated shortly after the

            accident occurred. He was unaware of any complaints or issues related to the grates on the C level

            floor.

            C. Deposition Testimony o{Henegan (Doc No. 44)

                     One of Henegan' s superintendents testified on its behalf and confirmed that it was the

            general contractor on the renovation project, with Thornton serving as the design/structural

            engineers and defendant Gensler Architecture Design and Planning, P.C. serving as the architect.

            The existing mechanical systems on the C level floor were removed and replaced as part of the

            renovation project, which included all mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. The pumps

            plaintiff replaced shortly before his accident and the metal grates above the pump pit were both

            installed as part of the renovation.

                     Cushman was not hired as a subcontractor by Henegan, and only interacted with Henegan

            staff to provide knowledge about the systems present at the subject building. Henegan did not

            supervise any work Cushman employees performed as part of their responsibilities.

            D. The Ford Foundation Logbooks and Cushman Purchase Orders (Doc No. 48)

                     A logbook entry dated June 6, 2019, provided that two defective pumps in the pump pit

            needed to be replaced, but only one spare pump was in the inventory kept at the subject building,

            so more replacements needed to be ordered. Another logbook entry dated June 18, 2019, provided

            that plaintiff and a coworker repaired a pump in the pit that day, and that plaintiff was injured after

             152143/2020 TISCIONE, PETER vs. FORD FOUNDATION                                        Page 4 of 9
             Motion No. 001

                                                           4 of 9
[* 4]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 152143/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 401                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            the pump was replaced. Two invoices dated June 12, 2019, and June 13, 2019, respectively.

            indicated that Cushman purchased a total of six pumps, which plaintiff corroborated at his

            deposition (Doc No. 42 at 15-16).

                                            II. Legal Analysis and Conclusions

                   Henegan contends that plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because he was not

            performing work covered by Labor Law, as he was merely performing routine maintenance. It

            also argues that dismissal is warranted because plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his

            accident. The Ford Foundation asserts in opposition that Henegan created an unsafe condition by

            removing a ladder previously installed inside the pump pit. Thornton argues in opposition that

            Henegan's motion is premature and that there are questions of fact pertaining to Henegan's alleged

            negligence regarding the installation of a ladder inside the pit. Plaintiff maintains in opposition

            that Henegan has failed to make a prima facie showing that his work was routine maintenance

            because the pumps were not mere components. He also argues he was not the sole proximate

            cause of his accident.

                   "In order to be entitled to the statutory protection, a worker must establish that he or she

            sustained injuries while engaged in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting,

            cleaning[,] or pointing of a building or structure" (Rhodes-Evans v 111 Chelsea LLC, 44 AD3d

            430, 432 [1st Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Although repairing is

            one of the activities enumerated in the statute, Labor Law does not cover workers "engaged in

            routine maintenance" (Gaston v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of NY, 190 AD3d 551,

            552 [1st Dept 2021]; see Smith v Shell Oil Co., 85 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1995]), which involves

            "replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear" (Esposito

            v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, I NY3d 526, 528 [2003]). In determining whether a worker

             152143/2020 TISCIONE, PETER vs. FORD FOUNDATION                                     Page 5 of 9
             Motion No. 001

                                                           5 of 9
[* 5]
                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 152143/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 401                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            was engaged in repairing as compared to routine maintenance, the work is viewed "not ... at the

            moment of injury, but in the context of the entire project" ( Gaston, 190 AD3d at 552; see Prats v

            Port Auth of NY & NJ, 100 NY2d 878, 881-882 [2003]).

                     Viewing plaintiff's work in the context of the entire renovation project, it constituted

            routine maintenance for four reasons. First, replacement of the pumps was unrelated to the work

            Henegan previously performed on the C level floor and was performing in other portions of the

            subject building on the date of plaintiff's accident (see Cullen v Uptown Star. Co., 268 AD2d 327,

            327 [1st Dept 2000] [finding replacing ceiling tiles was routine maintenance because it was "not

            part of the renovation work that had previously been performed by various contractors and

            subcontractors or that was ongoing in other parts of the building"]).

                     Second, replacing the pumps was not part of some larger, more involved project; all

            plaintiff had to do was replace the individual pumps (cf Gaston, 190 AD3d at 552 [finding issue

            of fact regarding whether activity covered by statute because work replacing boiler steam valve

            "was part of a larger project that included removing portions of the boilers via blowtorches and

            installation of new components by welding"]).

                     Third, the remedy for a malfunctioning pump was straightforward. To uninstall the broken

            pump, plaintiff simply had to unplug it from an electrical outlet and then uncouple it from some

            attached piping. To install the new pump, he merely had to reattach the piping and plug the new

            pump back into the outlet. 1 This type of straightforward fix is consistent with routine maintenance,

            not repairing activity covered under the statute (see Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc., 3 NY3d

                     1
                        At his deposition, plaintiff indicated that one of the pumps was hardwired into the electrical circuit.
            However, he gave no indication that replacing the hardwired pump was more difficult than the pump plugged into
            the electrical outlet, and it took the same amount of time to replace each style of pump.
             152143/2020 TISCIONE, PETER vs. FORD FOUNDATION                                                      Page 6 of 9
             Motion No. 001

                                                                  6 of 9
[* 6]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 152143/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 401                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            46, 53 [2004] [concluding work was routine maintenance because remedying problem only

            required loosening screws, draining water, and replacing damaged item]).

                    Fourth, and finally, an inventory of replacement pumps was kept in stock at the subject

            building (see Picaro v New York Convention Ctr. Dev. Corp., 97 AD3d 511, 512 [1st Dept 2012]

            [finding work was routine maintenance, in part, because replacement parts kept "in stock on the

            premises"]). Thus, Henegan has made a prima facie showing that plaintiff was not performing

            work covered under Labor Law.

                    Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that a triable question of fact exists. Although the pumps

            were only recently installed as part of the renovation project and plaintiff testified that he had not

            previously replaced the newly-installed pumps, those facts do not affect the determination that the

            type of work performed by plaintiff was the replacement of components consistent with routine

            maintenance (cf Roth v Lenox Terrace Assoc., 146 AD3d 608,608 [1st Dept 2017] [finding issues

            of fact existed where small component malfunctioned due to normal wear and tear but it was "not

            a part that would ordinarily require inspection, adjustment(,) or replacement, and that it generally

            lasts as long as (the larger component) and can last the life of the (machine)"]; Santiago v Fred-

            Doug 117, L.L.C., 68 AD3d 555,556 [1st Dept 2009] [finding issues of fact based on contradicting

            evidence about whether work done as part of normal maintenance call or larger multi-day repair

            project]).

                    Therefore, plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim must be dismissed (see Cordero v SL

            Green Realty Corp., 38 AD3d 202, 202 [1st Dept 2007] [dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law§ 240(1)

            claims after concluding he was injured while performing routine maintenance]).             "Nor does

            plaintiff have a claim under Labor Law§ 241(6), which only applies in construction, demolition[,]

            or excavation" (id. [dismissing Labor Law § 241(6) claim after concluding plaintiff involved in

             152143/2020 TISCIONE, PETER vs. FORD FOUNDATION                                        Page 7 of 9
             Motion No. 001

                                                           7 of 9
[* 7]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 152143/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 401                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            routine maintenance because such work not covered by statute]; see Esposito, 1 NY3d at 528

            [similar]).

                    Lastly, regarding plaintiff's Labor Law§ 200 claims, the statute only requires owners and

            general contractors "to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work" ( Comes v New

            York State Elec. & Gas. Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993] [emphasis added]), by "maintain[ing] a

            safe construction site" (Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 352 [1998] [emphasis

            added]). Here, as plaintiff was not a construction site worker entitled to Labor Law protection, his

            Labor Law § 200 claims must also be dismissed.

                    The parties remaining contentions are either without merit or need not be addressed given

            the findings above.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby:

                    ORDERED that the motion by defendant Henegan Construction, Co., Inc., for summary

           judgment dismissing the complaint as against it is granted and the complaint is dismissed in its

            entirety as against said defendant, with costs and disbursements to said defendant as taxed by the

            Clerk of the Court, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly in favor of said

            defendant; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining defendants; and

            it is further

                    ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissal and that all future papers

            filed with the court bear the amended caption; and it is further

                    ORDERED that counsel for the moving party shall serve a copy of this order with notice

            of entry upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office, who are directed

            to mark the court's records to reflect the change in the caption herein; and it is further

             152143/2020 TISCIONE, PETER vs. FORD FOUNDATION                                        Page 8 of 9
             Motion No. 001

                                                           8 of 9
[* 8]
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 152143/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 401                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General

            Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on

            Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-

            Filing" page on the court's website)].

                     4/5/2024
                      DATE                                                    DAVID B. COHEN, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED     GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                 SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN   FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             152143/2020 TISCIONE, PETER vs. FORD FOUNDATION                                    Page 9 of 9
             Motion No. 001

                                                           9 of 9
[* 9]