Court Opinion

ID: 9916532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:22.038742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:33.497941
License: Public Domain

Quintero v MBH Capital LLC
               2023 NY Slip Op 34577(U)
                    December 22, 2023
              Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 512159/2023
                  Judge: Devin P. 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.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:21 PM                                                                     INDEX NO. 512159/2023
  NYSCEF
    )    DOC. NO. 39                                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

            Supreme Court of the State of New York                        Index Number                       512159/2023
            County of Kings                                             · Seqs. 001, 002

                           Part LLl                                                 DECISION/ORDER
                                                                        Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a), of the papers
            FERNANDO VASQUEZ QUINTERO,                                  considered in the review of this Motion

                                                   Plaintiff,                                  Papers Numbered
                                                                        Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed .... ...1:::2...
                                                                         Order to Show Cause and Affidavits Annexed. _
                           against                                       Answering Affidavits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..H...    I
                                                                         Replying Affidavits ...................... _1_                        .]
                                                                         Exhibits ............................... _
            MBH CAPITAL LLC,DC NYC PROPERTIES LLC,                      .Other.:......................                  . . •• •••· -
            FEDERAL BRICK MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, MK
            GENERAL CONSTRUCTION INC.,

                                                 Defendants.

                  Upon the foregoing papers, defendant Federal Brick Management Group LLC (Federal)'s
                                                                                                                                               ·I
           motion for summary judgment and sanytions (Seq. 001) and plaintiff's cross-motion to serve a                                         !

           late answer to the counter-claim nunc pro tune and for summary judgment on the counter-claim

           (Seq. 002) are decided as follows:

           Procedural History and Factual Background

                  Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for damages he claiins to have sustained on

           April 13, 2023, when he fell from a ladder after being struck by a falling beam while working at·

           708 MacDonough Street, Brooklyn, NY. It is undisputed that Federal owned the premises until

           it was conveyed to MBH Capital LLC (MBH) on March 29~ 2023 by the delivery of a bargain

           and sale deed. The deed was notrecorded until April 19, 2023, six days after plaintiff's alleged

           accident. Plaintiff filed suit on April 25, 2023. Plaintiff named Federal as            adefendant in the
           instant lawsuit, and Federal's answer contains a counter-claim.for sanctions, contending that the

           action is frivolous. After Feder~l filed motion sequence 001 on August 28, 2023, plaintiff served

                                                            1

                                                         1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:21 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 512159/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

           an answer to the counter-claim on October 4, 2023. Federal served a notice ofrejection of

           plaintiffs answer on October 10, 2023.

           Analysis

                   On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the initial burden of making

           a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact (Giuffrida v Citibank, 100

           NY2d 72, 81 [2003]). Once a prima facie showing has been established, the burden shifts to the

           non-moving party to rebut the movant's showing such that a trial of the action is required

           (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]).

                  "Liability under Labor Law§ 240 (1) [is] 'absolute' in the sense that owners or

           contractors not actually involved in construction can be held liable, regardless of whether they

           exercise supervision or control over the work (Blake v Neighborhood Haus. Services ofNew

           York City, Inc., 1 NY3d 280,287 [2003]). Generally, statutory liability for owners under the

           Labor Law "rests upon the fact of ownership" (Gordon v E. Ry. Supply, Inc., 82 NY2d 555, 560

           [1993]). Moreover, the Court of Appeals has affirmed that a prior owner's liability for a

           dangerous premises condition continues even after conveying the premises until a reasonable

           time to cure such defect has passed (Farragher v City ofNew York, 21 NY2d 756 [1968]). The

           analysis c;,f what constitutes a reasonable time to cure such a condition is necessarily heavily fact-

           dependent.

                  Contrary to plaintiffs assertion, for the purposes of establishing legal interest, a deed

           need not be recorded for title to pass to a new owner (Town of N Hempstead v County of

           Nassau, 162 AD3d 705, 708 [2d Dept 2018)). Although a deed-holder who fails to record runs

           the risk oflosing title to a subsequent good-faith purchaser who does record their deed (Real

           Property Law§ 291; see e.g. Bello v Ouellette, 211 AD3d 784 [2d Dept 2022]), that is intended

                                                             2

                                                          2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:21 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 512159/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

           to protect the rights of innocent purchasers, not a party seeking to recover for personal

           injuries suffered on the property (Abbott v City of New York, 207 AD2d 853 [2d Dept 1994]).

           The "failure to record the deed by which [defendant] divested himself of his interest in the

           property does not bar the granting of summary judgment" (Hernandez v Chen, 273 AD2d 274,

           275 [2dDept 2000]).

                  Defendant seeks summary judgment on the basis that it had already transferred the

           property by conveying the deed prior to the date of plaintiffs accident and divested itself of

           ownership responsibility, irrespective of whether or not the deed was recorded before the

           accident. In support of its motion, Federal submits the affidavit of Beverly McDonald, the

           principal and managing member of Federal. Ms. McDonald confirms the date of the sale of the

           premises and further states that Federal was not involved with the premises after the sale, did not

           hire plaintiff or plaintiffs employer, and that there were no other agents of Federal that could

           have hired the plaintiff or his employer (McDonald aff. at, 21-31).

                  However, Ms. McDonald's
                                  .
                                          affidavit is silent as to two essential issues: the condition of
                                                                                                        r

           the premises at the time of conveyance and whether Federal contracted with the general· /

           contractor (who may then have sub-contracted with plaintiffs employer). Plaintiffs complaint

           allegesthat his accident was caused or contributed to by a "dangerous premises condition"

           (complaint at ,r 102) and that Federal contracted for work to be done at the premises on the date

           of plaintiffs accident (id. at ,r 63). Defendant Federal does not offer any evidence to controvert

           plaintiffs claim about a dangerous premises condition causing his accident. Furthermore, this

           motion was made prior to the completion of any discovery that could confirm or refute plaintiffs

           allegations. Accordingly, Federal has failed to make out its prim~ facie case for summary ·

           judgment and its motion must be denied 'tregardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers"

                                                            3

                                                         3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:21 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 512159/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

           (Winegradv New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851,853 [1985]). Federal's motion is

           therefore denied as premature.

                    Defendant Federal also seeks default judgment on its counter-claim for costs and

           sanctions against the plaintiff.. It is undisputed that the plaintiff answered defendant's counter-

           claim late and in response to the instant motion. In order to resist default judgment, a party must

           demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to reply and a potentially meritorious defense (see

           MMG Design Inc v Melnick, 35 AD3d 823 [2d Dept 2006]). In his affidavit in opposition,

           plaintiff's counsel takes responsibility for the law office failure-specifically, for overlooking

           the counter-claim and failing to interpose a timely answer (aff. in supp. at, 4). The merits of

           plaintiff's defense to Federal' s counter-claim are demonstrated by the denial of Federal' s motion

           for summary judgment, analyzed above. Given the reasonable excuse and a meritorious defense,

          defendant's motion for default judgment is denied, and plaintiff's motion to deem his answer to

          the counter-claim served nunc pro tune is granted.

                    In light of denial of Federal's motion for summary judgment d~e to questions of material

          fact, costs and sanctions are not warranted (Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v Hamar,

           163 AD3d 522 [2d Dept 2018]; see also Baker v Health Mgt. Sys:, Inc., 98 NY2d 80, 88 [2002]

          [the "American Rule" does not warrant cost shifting "absent explicit statutory authority"

          (emphasis original)]). Without comment on what the ultimate fate of plaintiffs claims against

          Federal may prove to be, plaintiff is awarded summary judgment solely on the defendant's

          counter-claim for costs and sanctions; Federal's counter-claim is hereby dismissed.

          Conclusion

                    Defendant's motion (Seq. 001) for summary judgment, default judgment, and sanctions is

          denied.

                                                            4

                                                          4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2024 12:21 PM                                                INDEX NO. 512159/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 39                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2024

                  Plaintiffs cross- motion for summary judgment and to accept the answer nimc pro tune

           (Seq. 002) is granted. Plaintiffs answer to the counter-claims is deemed served, and defendant's

           counter-claim is dismissed.

                  This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

              December 22, 2023
           DATE                                                 DEVIN P. COHEN
                                                                Justice of the Supreme Court

                                                           5

                                                         5 of 5
[* 5]