Court Opinion

ID: 9929197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:08:35.486815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:43.314121
License: Public Domain

Dos Santos v BOP Greenpoint D LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30320(U)
                    January 12, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 511521/2021
                 Judge: Rupert V. Barry
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 01/29/2024 03:14 PM                                                        INDEX NO. 511521/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
            Index No.: 51152/2021

                                                                      At an IAS Term, Part 13, of the Supreme
                                                                      Court of the State of New York, held in and
                                                                      for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse at
                                                                      320 Jay Street, Brooklyn, New York on the
                                                                      12th day of January 2024

            P R E S E N T:

             HON. RUPERT V. BARRY, A.J.S.C.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------x
            EDILSON TEXEIRA DOS SANTOS,                                          :    Cal. No.: 53 (Motion Seq. No.:
                                                                                 : 1)
                                        Plaintiff,                               :    Cal. No.: 54 (Motion Seq. No.:
                                                                                 : 2)
                      -against-                                                  :     Index No.: 511521/2021
                                                                                 :
            BOP GREENPOINT D LLC and NEW LINE:
            STRUCTURES & DEVELOPMENT LLC,                                        :    DECISION & ORDER
                                                                                 : (Corrected: January 24, 2024)
                                        Defendants.

            ----------------------------------------------------------------------x
                     Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219(a), of the papers considered in review in
            connection with Plaintiff’s motion for summary against Defendants as to liability and
            Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 to dismiss the
            complaint.: NYSCEF Doc. Nos: 14-36; 51-55; 62-64; 37 – 50; 58–61; 65.

                     Upon the foregoing cited papers and after oral arguments, this Court finds as follows:

                     This matter arises from allegations by Plaintiff that he slipped and fell at the construction

            worksite owned by Defendant BOP Greenpoint D LLC and managed by Defendant New Line

            Structures and Development LLC. Plaintiff alleges that he slipped and fell on February 27, 2021,

            due to a mixture of rainwater and dirt debris when transporting a beam from the 31st to 32nd floor

            of the worksite causing Plaintiff to suffer various substantial injuries. Plaintiff filed his motion

            seeking summary judgment (Motion Seq. No.:1) on Defendants’ alleged violation of Labor Law

            §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). Defendants filed their cross-motion for summary judgment (Motion Seq.

            No.: 2) seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s §§ 240 (1) and 240 (6) Labor Law claims.

                                                                1

                                                             1 of 4
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 03:14 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 511521/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72                                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
            Index No.: 51152/2021

                     To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the movant must make a prima facie

            showing of entitlement as a matter of law (Hutchison v Sheridan Hill House Corp., 26 NY3d 66

            [2015]). Summary judgment should be denied if there is any doubt as to the existence of a factual

            issue (Asabor v Archdiocese of N.Y., 102 AD3d 524 [2013]). To defeat summary judgment, the

            party opposing the motion must show there is a material question of fact that requires a trial

            (Zuckerman v New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

                     To establish liability under Labor Law § 241 (6)1, Plaintiff must demonstrate that his

            injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code provision that is applicable

            under the circumstances of this case (Chuqui v Amna, LLC, 203 AD3d 1018 [2d Dept 2022]). The

            applicable industrial code provisions in the instant case are Industrial Code 12 NYCRR § 23- 1.7

            (d) and (e). Industrial Code 12 NYCRR § 23- 1.7 (e) reads in pertinent part that “all passageways

            shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from any other obstructions or

            conditions which could cause tripping”.

                     Although Plaintiff cites to Industrial Code § 23- 1.7 (e), this section only applies to tripping

            hazards. Here, Plaintiff alleges he slipped and fell. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for summary

            judgment as to this cause of action is denied.

                     Turning our attention to 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7 (d), which reads in pertinent part that

            “[e]mployers shall not suffer or permit any employee to use a floor . . . which is in a slippery

            condition. Ice, snow, water, grease and other foreign substance which may cause slippery footing

            shall be removed, sanded or covered to provide safe footing”. This provision likewise does not

            support Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in that on February 21, 2021, Plaintiff signed an

            1
             Labor Law § 241(6) states in pertinent part: “All areas in which construction, excavation, or demolition work is being
            performed shall be constructed as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons
            employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places.”

                                                                      2

                                                                  2 of 4
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 03:14 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 511521/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
            Index No.: 51152/2021

            accident report which attributed his injuries to standing on a wall clamp and slipping on falling on

            his shoulder (NYSCEF Doc. No.:.30). However, Plaintiff stated in his deposition that the accident

            occurred due to a mixture of water and dirt debris (NYSCEF Doc. No.: 29). Due to the

            inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s statements in regard to what caused the alleged accident, this Court

            finds that there remain material issues of fact to be decided at trial and denies this branch of

            Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

                     Finally, with respect to Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment on his Labor Law §

            240 (1) claim. Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to accidents “in which a scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder

            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]). This statute is inapplicable to the instant case as the

            injury alleged does not relate to a gravity related accident.

                     Defendants in their cross-motion for summary judgment, seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s

            claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6). Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the

            common-law duty of an owner or employer to provide employees with a safe place to work

            (Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343[1998]). “’Where. . . a Plaintiff’s injuries stem

            not from the manner in which the work was being performed, but rather from a dangerous

            condition on the premises, a general contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under

            Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the

            dangerous condition’” (Lane v Fratello Contr. Co., 52 AD3d 575, 576 [2d Dept 2008]).

                     This Court finds that there is an issue of Defendants’ actually or constructive notice of the

            alleged dangerous conditions that cause Plaintiff’s alleged accident. Additionally, in that Plaintiff

                                                               3

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 03:14 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 511521/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 72                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024
            Index No.: 51152/2021

            statements variously allege he slipped and fell on (i) rainwater and dirt-debris or (ii) slipped and

            fell while standing on a wall clamp, there remains issues of material facts to be decided at trial.

                     However, in that this Court has found Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim to be

            inapplicable to the facts of the instant case, Defendants cross-motion seeking dismissal of that

            claim should be granted.

                     Defendants cross-motion seeking dismissal Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) and

            related Industrial Code 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7 (d) and (e), is denied for the reasons previously stated

            above.

                     For the reasons stated above, it is

                   ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion (Motion Seq. No.: 1) seeking summary judgment
            finding Defendants liable pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) of the Labor Law DENIED.
                   (i)    Summary judgment holding Defendants liable pursuant to 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7 (d)
                          is DENIED.
                   (ii)   Summary judgment holding Defendants liable pursuant to 12 NYCRR § 23- 1.7 (e)
                          is DENIED. It is further

                   ORDERED, that Defendants’ motion (Motion Seq. No.: 2) seeking summary judgment
            dismissing Plaintiff cause of action is granted in part and denied in part as follows.
                   (i)     Summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim is
                           GRANTED.
                   (ii)    Summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s 12 NYCRR § 23- 1.7 (e) claim is
                           DENIED.
                   (iii)   Summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7 (d) claim is
                           DENIED.
                   (iv)    Summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim is DENIED.

                     This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
                     *All applications not specifically addressed herein are Denied.

                                                                    ____________________________________
                                                                    HON. RUPERT V. BARRY, A.J.S.C.

                                                              4

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]