Court Opinion

ID: 9942836
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 21:09:27.218593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:44.749623
License: Public Domain

Barreto v Board of Mgrs. of 545 W. 110th St.
                     Condominium
               2024 NY Slip Op 30489(U)
                    February 14, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 160421/2017
                  Judge: Louis L. Nock
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. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LOUIS L. NOCK                                                 PART                              38M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          160421/2017
             EDUARDO BARRETO,
                                                                                                                       08/19/2022,
                                                         Plaintiff,                                                    10/14/2022,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE        10/14/2022
                                                 -v-
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.    003 004 005
             THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545 WEST 110TH
             STREET CONDOMINIUM, 545 WEST 110TH STREET
             CONDOMINIUM, RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT GROUP,
             LLC, CHELSEA CLEANING SERVICES, INC., and                                                DECISION + ORDER ON
             CHELSEA WINDOW CLEANING, INC.,                                                                 MOTION

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 003) 96, 97, 98, 99, 100,
            101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 143, 144, 145, 146, 149, 150, 153, 154, 155, 156,
            157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 174, 175, 179, 180, 183, 184, and 190
            were read on this motion for                                                         SUMMARY JUDGMENT                     .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 004) 115, 116, 117, 118,
            119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 147, 151, 168, 169,
            170, 176, 181, 185, and 186
            were read on this motion for                                                         SUMMARY JUDGMENT                     .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 005) 136, 137, 138, 139,
            140, 141, 142, 148, 152, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 177, 178, 182, 187, and 188
            were read on this motion for                                                         SUMMARY JUDGMENT                     .

            LOUIS L. NOCK, J.

                      Upon the foregoing documents, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its claims

            under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) (Mot. Seq. No. 003); the motion by defendants Board of

            Managers of 545 West 110th Street Condominium (the “Board”), 545 West 110th Street

            Condominium (the “Owner”), and Residential Management Group, LLC (the “Manager,” and

            collectively, the “Board defendants”) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all

            cross-claims (Mot. Seq. No. 004); and the motion of defendant Chelsea Cleaning Services, Inc.

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                                                 Page 1 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                                          1 of 13
[* 1]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            d/b/a Chelsea Window Cleaning, incorrectly sued hereunder as Chelsea Window Cleaning, Inc.

            (“Chelsea”), for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims (Mot. Seq.

            No. 005), are consolidated for disposition in accordance with the following memorandum.

                   Background

                   Plaintiff is a window washer, employed by nonparty Mark Prince LLC (Barreto 2018

            EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 102 at 71). On the day of the accident, plaintiff was dispatched to

            the building located at 545 West 110th Street, New York, New York, to wash the exterior

            windows (id.). Plaintiff was to rappel down the side of the building, for which he was given a

            rope main line and a boatswain’s chair (Barreto 2019 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 103 at 21, 27,

            69-70). Additionally, plaintiff had a safety line, which was anchored to the roof to prevent him

            from falling in the event of a break or other problem with the main line (Barreto 2018 EBT tr,

            NYSCEF Doc. No. 102 at 57; Barreto 2019 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 103 at 21). The safety

            line was attached to plaintiff’s harness with a lanyard, and a rope grab between the safety line

            and the lan1yard was meant to lock in place and arrest any potential fall (Barreto 2018 EBT tr,

            NYSCEF Doc. No. 102 at 56-5§7; Barreto 2019 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 103 at 21). The

            ropes were tied off at iron anchors on the roof of the building (Barreto 2018 EBT tr, NYSCEF

            Doc No. 102 at 66, 75, 101). The balconies of the buildings were surrounded by smooth railings,

            under which were stainless steel mesh panels (balcony photographs, NYSCEF Doc. No. 127).

                   While cleaning the upper windows of the building, plaintiff’s main rope parted and he

            fell approximately 12-15 feet to a terrace below (Barreto 2018 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 102 at

            92; Barreto 2019 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 103 at 42). Plaintiff testified that the lanyard did

            not grab the safety line and arrest his fall, even though the rope grab was positioned above his

            head (Barreto 2018 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 102 at 144; Barreto 2019 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc.

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                           Page 2 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                         2 of 13
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            No. 103 at 57-58). While he testified that he had not encountered anything sharp while cleaning,

            he confirmed that the ropes had been touching metal, which he observed from his boatswain’s

            chair (Barreto 2018 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 102 at 135, 151-153, 156). He also testified that

            he had with him a rope guard, used to protect the ropes from rubbing on metal surfaces, but had

            not been using it when he fell (Barreto 2019 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 103 at 45-48).

                   Johnny Guevara, the building’s resident manager, testified on behalf of Owner. After

            plaintiff fell, Guevara went to the eleventh floor of the building with plaintiff’s employer Mark

            Prince. Upon arriving at the balcony on the eleventh floor, he saw two ropes, one of which had

            been severed (Guevara EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 104 at 102; photo marked Def.’s exhibit J,

            NYSCEF Doc. No. 109). Prince testified that he inspected plaintiff’s rope at the point where it

            was cut on the eleventh floor, and noticed fragments of cut rope on the stainless steel panel, from

            which he deduced that the rope was cut from rubbing back and forth on the steel panel (Prince

            EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 123 at 88-91, 94-97). In addition, Prince stated that he was told by

            plaintiff’s coworker that plaintiff’s rope grab was in fact positioned by his hip, and, therefore,

            could not arrest his fall (id. at 101-102). Further, he observed in a video recording taken of the

            scene that the size of the safety line did not match the rope grab, meaning that the rope grab

            might not have functioned correctly even if it had been above plaintiff’s head (id. at 152-154).

                   Standard of Review

                   Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no disputed material facts (Andre v

            Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361, 364 [1974]). The moving party must tender sufficient evidentiary proof

            to warrant judgment as a matter of law (Zuckerman v City of N.Y., 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

            “Failure to make such prima facie showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the

            sufficiency of the opposing papers” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                             Page 3 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                          3 of 13
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            [internal citations omitted]). Once a movant has met this burden, “the burden shifts to the

            opposing party to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to create a question of fact requiring

            a trial” (Kershaw v Hospital for Special Surgery, 114 AD3d 75, 82 [1st Dept 2013]). “[I]t is

            insufficient to merely set forth averments of factual or legal conclusions” (Genger v Genger, 123

            AD3d 445, 447 [1st Dept 2014] [internal citation omitted]). Moreover, the reviewing court

            should accept the opposing party's evidence as true (Hotopp Assocs. v Victoria's Secret Stores,

            256 AD2d 285, 286-287 [1st Dept 1998]), and give the opposing party the benefit of all

            reasonable inferences (Negri v Stop & Shop, 65 NY2d 625, 626 [1985]). Therefore, if there is

            any doubt as to the existence of a triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied

            (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 [1978]).

                   Discussion

                   Common Law Negligence and Labor Law § 200

                   Labor Law § 200 “is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or

            general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work” (Singh v Black

            Diamonds LLC, 24 AD3d 138, 139 [1st Dept 2005], citing Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas

            Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]). Labor Law § 200 (1) states, in pertinent part, as follows:

                           All places to which this chapter applies shall be so constructed,
                           equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide
                           reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health and safety of
                           all persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places.
                           All machinery, equipment, and devices in such places shall be so
                           placed, operated, guarded, and lighted as to provide reasonable and
                           adequate protection to all such persons.

                   There are two distinct standards applicable to section 200 cases, depending on the kind of

            situation involved: (1) when the accident is the result of the means and methods used by a

            contractor to do its work, and (2) when the accident is the result of a dangerous condition that is

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                             Page 4 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                         4 of 13
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            inherent in the premises (see McLeod v Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus

            Christ of Latter Day Sts., 41 AD3d 796, 797-798 [2d Dept 2007]; see also Griffin v New York

            City Tr. Auth., 16 AD3d 202, 202 [1st Dept 2005]).

                   “Where a plaintiff's claims implicate the means and methods of the work, an owner or a

            contractor will not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 unless it had the authority to supervise

            or control the performance of the work” (LaRosa v Internap Network Servs. Corp., 83 AD3d

            905, 909 [2d Dept 2011]). Specifically, “liability can only be imposed against a party who

            exercises actual supervision of the injury-producing work” (Naughton v City of New York, 94

            AD3d 1, 11 [1st Dept 2012]). However, where an injury stems from a dangerous condition

            inherent in the premises, an owner or contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and

            under Labor Law § 200 when the owner or contractor “‘created the dangerous condition causing

            an injury or when the owner failed to remedy a dangerous or defective condition of which he or

            she had actual or constructive notice’” (Mendoza v Highpoint Assoc., IX, LLC, 83 AD3d 1, 9 [1st

            Dept 2011], quoting Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57 AD3d 121, 128 [2d Dept 2008]).

                   Here, neither theory of liability avails plaintiff. It is undisputed in the record that none of

            the defendants actually supervised plaintiff’s work. Indeed, plaintiff raises only a dangerous

            condition theory of liability, specifically, with regard to the steel panel that severed the rope.

            The court is skeptical that the steel panel constitutes an inherently dangerous condition on the

            premises. Assuming arguendo that it does, however, defendants adequately establish that they

            had no actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect, and plaintiff does not raise a material

            issue of fact requiring trial. As to actual notice, ne one discovered the severed rope, or that that

            the rope had been severed by repeated contact with the panel, until after plaintiff fell, which is

            undisputed. As to constructive notice, “[t]o constitute constructive notice, a defect must be

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                              Page 5 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                           5 of 13
[* 5]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            visible and apparent, and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to

            permit defendant's employees to discover and remedy it” (Gordon v American Museum of

            Natural History, 67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]). Guevara, the resident manager, testified that the

            panel was in the condition it was supposed to be in at the time of the accident (Guevara EBT tr,

            NYSCEF Doc. No. 104 at 107). Moreover, there had never been any prior complaints regarding

            the panel by any of the window washers (id. at 122-23). Finally, it is largely undisputed that the

            rope severed due to the repeated contact of the rope with the panel and the commensurate friction

            caused by the two objects rubbing together as plaintiff rappelled down the building. “W here the

            alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor's methods and the owner

            exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the

            common law or under Labor Law § 200” (Comes v New York State Elec. and Gas Corp., 82

            NY2d 876, 877 [1993]). Based upon the foregoing, so much of defendants’ motions as seek

            summary judgment dismissing this claim are granted.

                   Labor Law § 202

                   Labor Law § 202 provides, in relevant part:

                   The owner, lessee, agent and manager of every public building and every
                   contractor involved shall provide such safe means for the cleaning of the windows
                   and of exterior surfaces of such building as may be required and approved by the
                   [industrial board of appeals] . . . [and] shall not require, permit, suffer or allow
                   any window or exterior surface of such building to be cleaned unless such means
                   are provided to enable such work to be done in a safe manner for the prevention
                   of accidents and for the protection of the public and of persons engaged in such
                   work in conformity with the requirements of this chapter and the rules of the
                   board of standards and appeals. A person engaged at cleaning windows or
                   exterior surfaces of a public building shall use the safety devices provided for his
                   protection. Every employer and contractor involved shall comply with this
                   section and the rules of the board and shall require his employee, while engaged
                   in cleaning any window or exterior surface of a public building, to use the
                   equipment and safety devices required by this chapter and rules of the [industrial
                   board of appeals].

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                              Page 6 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                          6 of 13
[* 6]
                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            By its terms, Labor Law § 202 “protects the cleaning of only windows and exterior surfaces”

            (Bataraga v Burdick, 261 AD2d 106, 107 [1st Dept 1999]). “Labor Law § 202 requires the

            application of comparative negligence principles because statutory liability is predicated on a

            violation of the Industrial Code” (Brown v Christopher St. Owners Corp., 2 AD3d 172, 173 [1st

            Dept 2003]). The rules promulgated by the Industrial Board of Appeals are set forth at 12

            NYCRR 21” (Padovano v Teddy's Realty Assoc., Ltd., 56 AD3d 444, 446 [2d Dept 2008]).

                      Here, 12 NYCRR 21.3 provides that “[n]o owner shall suffer or permit a cleaner to clean

            a window of his building unless it has the structural features and the anchors or other fixed

            devices required by this Part in respect to the authorized means and methods of cleaning used by

            the cleaner” (12 NYCRR 21.3[b][1]). As set forth above, the anchors were present and utilized

            by plaintiff (Barreto 2018 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc No. 102 at 66, 75, 101). The statute does not

            impose further requirements on Owner (Berrios v 1115 Fifth Ave. Corp., 160 AD2d 655, 656

            [1st Dept 1990] [“The Legislature did not impose a coextensive responsibility on owners to

            require and ensure the use of safety devices. If it had intended to make owners and their agents

            responsible for a window cleaner's failure to use the safety devices provided, it would have so

            provided”]). Plaintiff makes no argument in opposition to defendants’ motions for summary

            judgment dismissing this claim. Accordingly, so much of defendants’ motions for summary

            judgment seeking dismissal of this claim are granted.

                      Labor Law § 240(1)1

                      Labor Law § 240 (1), also known as the Scaffold Law, provides, as relevant:

            1
              Plaintiff also alleges a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(2), but makes no argument in opposition to
            defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing said claim. The statute also has no relevance to this action
            (see Gaffney v BFP 300 Madison II, LLC, 18 AD3d 403, 404 [1st Dept 2005] [“Summary judgment was also
            appropriate under § 240(2), as the float scaffold was elevated more than 20 feet and lacked guardrails”]).
            Accordingly, so much of defendants’ motions seeking dismissal of the claim are granted.
                160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                                      Page 7 of 13
                Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                                7 of 13
[* 7]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                   All contractors and owners and their agents . . . 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.

            “Labor Law § 240 (1) was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold . . .

            or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly

            flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” (Ross v Curtis-

            Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501 [1993]). Importantly, Labor Law § 240 (1) “is

            designed to protect workers from gravity-related hazards . . . and must be liberally construed to

            accomplish the purpose for which it was framed” (Valensisi v Greens at Half Hollow, LLC, 33

            AD3d 693, 695 [2d Dept 2006] [internal citations omitted]).

                   Not every worker who falls or is struck by a falling object at a construction site is

            afforded the protections of Labor Law § 240(1), and “a distinction must be made between those

            accidents caused by the failure to provide a safety device . . . and those caused by general

            hazards specific to a workplace” (Makarius v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N. J., 76 AD3d 805, 807 [1st

            Dept 2010]). Instead, liability “is contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in

            section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind

            enumerated therein” (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]).

            Therefore, to prevail on a section 240 (1) claim, a plaintiff must show that the statute was

            violated, and that this violation was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries (Cahill v

            Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 NY3d 35, 39 [2004]).

                   As an initial matter, Chelsea argues that this claim should be dismissed against it because

            it is not a proper Labor Law defendant. “When the work giving rise to [the duty to conform to

            the requirements of section 240 (1)] has been delegated to a third party, that third party then

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                             Page 8 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                          8 of 13
[* 8]
                                                                                                           INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            obtains the concomitant authority to supervise and control that work and becomes a statutory

            ‘agent’ of the owner or general contractor” (Walls v Turner Const. Co., 4 NY3d 861, 864

            [2005]). “Thus, unless a defendant has supervisory control and authority over the work being

            done when the plaintiff is injured, there is no statutory agency conferring liability under the

            Labor Law” (id.).

                      Here, Chelsea had no supervisory authority over plaintiff’s work. Chelsea was not the

            “coordinator and overall supervisor for all the work being performed on the job site” (id.). No

            written contract providing that Chelsea retained supervisory authority over plaintiff’s employer’s

            work exists (cf. Rooney v D.P. Consulting Corp., 204 AD3d 428, 429 [1st Dept 2022]

            [“Although no documentary evidence of Edge's subcontract with DP was submitted, there is

            testimonial evidence that the subcontract made Edge responsible for performing all aspects of the

            sidewalk excavation, including safety procedures”]). There is no meaningful dispute in the

            record as to the fact that Chelsea had no employees at the building and did not direct plaintiff’s

            work or provide materials and safety devices for it. Plaintiff and the Board defendants argue in

            opposition that Chelsea may not delegate its potential liability away, but the cases they cite are

            distinguishable. In Nascimento v Bridgehampton Const. Corp. (86 AD3d 189, 194 [1st Dept

            2011]), the contractor specifically retained the authority to direct the work in its contract with the

            subcontractor. A similar provision existed in White v 31-01 Steinway, LLC (165 AD3d 449, 450-

            51 [1st Dept 2018]). The decision in Timmons v Lynx Contr. Corp. (49 AD3d 382 [1st Dept

            2008]) is light on detail, but enough is set forth to suggest that the contractor seeking to evade

            liability had also retained some level of responsibility for the injury causing work. Since Chelsea

            did not retain such responsibility or supervision, this claim must be dismissed against it.2

            2
             Plaintiff and the Board defendants argue that the Workers’ Compensation Board has already deemed Chelsea a
            general contractor, but “here is no indication in the record that this was a disputed issue at the Workers'
                160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                                  Page 9 of 13
                Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                              9 of 13
[* 9]
                                                                                                              INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                    As to the merits of this claim, there are three points of dispute regarding the happening of

            plaintiff’s accident: his failure to use a rope guard to prevent the steel panel from severing the

            rope; his use of a different size safety rope than the rope grab; and the positioning of the rope

            grab. Plaintiff argues that these issues are essentially irrelevant, as they at most establish

            comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part, which is not a defense to a claim under Section

            240(1). In this regard, comparative negligence is not available as a defense to such a claim

            because the statute holds responsible persons or entities strictly liable; allowing such persons to

            avoid liability because the injured worker was to some degree also negligence is contrary to the

            statutes purpose (Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of New York City, Inc., 1 NY3d 280, 289

            [2003]). Nevertheless, where adequate safety devices were provided and the fault lies entirely

            with plaintiff’s use, misuse, or lack of use thereof, a defendant may establish that plaintiff should

            be barred from recovering as the “sole proximate cause of the accident” (id. at 290).

                    Here, issues of fact preclude summary judgment. With respect to the rope guard, which

            all agree plaintiff did not use, plaintiff and his coworker testified that the rope guard was not

            needed because of the smooth railing above the steel panel (Barreto 2018 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 102 at 135, 151-53; Barreto 2019 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 103 at 45-47; Cardenas EBT

            tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 128 at 54, 141). While hindsight may indicate that plaintiff perhaps

            should have used the rope guard, the Board defendants offer only speculation that the rope guard

            would have prevented the severing of the rappelling line (Zuckerman, 49 NY2d at 562 [“mere

            conclusions, expressions of hope or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient”]).

            In this regard, the court notes the testimony of Cardenas, plaintiff’s coworker, that the rope

            guards were made of nylon or hose (Cardenas EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 128 at 26, 45-46).

            Compensation proceeding or that the WCB specifically adjudicated this issue (Torres v Perry St. Dev. Corp., 104
            AD3d 672, 674-75 [2d Dept 2013])
             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                                       Page 10 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                               10 of 13
[* 10]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            With respect to whether the rope grab was appropriately matched to the safety line, the sole

            support for that argument is Prince’s testimony that an inappropriately sized rope grab “might

            not have done anything anyway” (Prince EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 123 at 152). Such

            testimony is too speculative to create a triable issue of fact.

                    There is, however, a dispute in the testimony regarding the rope grab and how plaintiff

            had positioned it. Contrary to the Board defendants’ argument, plaintiff did not offer conflicting

            testimony as to the location of the rope grab, having testified that it was positioned properly

            above his head (Barreto 2019 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 103 at 57-58). At an earlier

            deposition, he had testified that the lanyard which connected his harness to the safety line was

            located at his shoulders, which the Board defendants interpret to mean his rope grab was placed

            there as well (Barreto 2018 EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 102 at 144). There is no basis in the

            record for the court to make such an interpretation. Cardenas testified that he did not know

            where the rope grab had been positioned, but did testify that the rope grab was in good working

            order prior to the accident, and should have caught plaintiff if it were correctly positioned

            (Cardenas EBT tr, NYSCEF Doc. No. 128 at 67-68). Such a dispute must be resolved by the

            jury. Accordingly, the motions related to this claim are both denied.

                    Labor Law § 241(6)

                    Labor Law § 241 (6) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

                    All contractors and owners and their agents, . . . when constructing or demolishing
                    buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith, shall comply with the
                    following requirements:
                                                           ***
                    (6)    All areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being
                           performed shall be so constructed, shored, [and] equipped . . . as to provide
                           reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed
                           therein or lawfully frequenting such places.

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                            Page 11 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                          11 of 13
[* 11]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            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” (Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 348 [1998]). However, cases

            where the work performed was “routine exterior window washing” are not within the ambit of

            Section 241(6) (Wowk v Broadway 280 Park Fee, LLC, 94 AD3d 669, 671 [1st Dept 2012]).

            Thus, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on this claim is denied, defendants’

            motions for summary judgment dismissing the claim are granted, and the claim is dismissed.

                      Accordingly, it is hereby

                      ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Mot. Seq. No. 003) is

            denied; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the Board defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the

            complaint and cross-claims (Mot. Seq. No. 004) is granted to the extent that the first, second,

            third, fifth, and so much of the fourth cause of action as relates to Labor Law § 240(2), as well as

            Chelsea’s cross-claims, are severed and dismissed, and the motion is otherwise denied; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED that Chelsea’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and

            cross-claims (Mot. Seq. No. 005) is granted in its entirety, the complaint and cross-claims against

            Chelsea severed and dismissed, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor

            Chelsea dismissing the action against it; and it is further

                      ORDERED that the action shall continue as to plaintiff’s claim against the Board

            defendants for violation of Labor Law § 240(1); and it is further

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                           Page 12 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                          12 of 13
[* 12]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 160421/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 194                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                    ORDERED that this matter is respectfully referred to the Clerk of the Trial Assignment

            Part to be scheduled for trial.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                                                                             ENTER:

                    2/14/2024                                                               $SIG$
                      DATE                                                           LOUIS L. NOCK, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                X    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

             APPLICATION:
                                          GRANTED

                                          SETTLE ORDER
                                                              DENIED   X    GRANTED IN PART

                                                                            SUBMIT ORDER
                                                                                                    □    OTHER

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

             160421/2017 BARRETO, EDUARDO vs. BOARD OF MANAGERS OF 545                               Page 13 of 13
             Motion No. 003 004 005

                                                           13 of 13
[* 13]