Court Opinion

ID: 9958747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:42.141425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:40.322316
License: Public Domain

Petruso v 185 Broadway Owner LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31040(U)
                     March 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157044/2021
                 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. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                                 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                           NEW YORK COUNTY
          PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                                PART                              58
                                                                                    Justice
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          157044/2021
           GIOVANNI PETRUSO,
                                                                                                  MOTION DATE         09/21/2023
                                                       Plaintiff,
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO.      002 003
                                               -v-
           185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC, SL GREEN REALTY
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
           CORP., S&E BRIDGE & SCAFFOLD LLC,
                                                                                                          MOTION
                                                       Defendants.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

          The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
          68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 109, 110, 130, 131, 132,
          133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144, 145
          were read on this motion to/for                                       SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER                      .

          The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 89, 90, 91, 92, 93,
          94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,
          118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 142
          were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                   .

                    In this Labor Law action, plaintiff moves for an order granting partial summary judgment

          against defendants 185 Broadway Owner LLC and SL Green Realty Corp. (collectively, Owner

          defendants) on the issue of liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), against defendant

          S&E Bridge &Scaffold LLC (S&E) on his Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law

          negligence claims, and to strike defendants comparative fault affirmative defense (mot. seq.

          002). Defendants move for an order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint

          against them (mot. seq. 003). Both motions are opposed.

                                                  I.         PERTINENT BACKGROUND

                    This case arises out of two distinct but consecutive incidents that occurred on October 27,

          2020, at a construction project at 185 Broadway in Manhattan, where plaintiff was allegedly

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                                            Page 1 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

         [* 1]
                                                                        1 of 12
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          injured while operating the project’s south hoist car and then while being transported in its north

          hoist car.

          Deposition Testimony of Plaintiff (NYSCEF 140

                    Plaintiff testified that he was employed by non-party general contractor Pavirini

          McGovern (PMG) as a hoist car operator on the project. On October 27, 2020, while he was

          operating the south hoist car, it began to pick up speed, started swinging, and slammed into the

          side of a building causing plaintiff to be “whipped around” and “jolted back and forth”, and his

          whole body made contact with the wall of the hoist car.

                    Plaintiff exited the south hoist car and contacted the operator of the north hoist car, who

          came to pick him up. While being transported in the north hoist car, the “hoist’s safety

          mechanism failed, and [they] free fell and [they] crashed into the bottom of the concrete slab and

          [he] got knocked around.”

          Deposition Testimony of Defendants & Expert Affidavits

                    S&E was the project’s hoist and scaffolding contractor responsible for maintaining,

          servicing, and repairing the hoist cars (NYSCEF 140).

                    S&E’s hoist repair mechanic testified that around the time of the incident, he visited the

          site at least three times a week as the hoists were working nonstop carrying huge loads. On

          October 26, 2020, the day before the accident, he responded to a service call at the site, inspected

          both hoist cars, and replaced several rollers (NYSCEF 81 at 41-42,65; NYSCEF 140 at 12, 24).

          The mechanic returned on October 27, 2020, after the accident had occurred, and examined both

          hoists, and opined that the south car incident may have been caused by a short circuit and the

          north car incident may have been caused by a slow-down switch (id. at 73, 82-83n).

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                         Page 2 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

            [* 2]
                                                          2 of 12
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                   S&E’s general foreman was in the north hoist car with the plaintiff during the second

          incident and testified that the car stopped “a little more abruptly than normal” (NYSCEF 80 at

          156).

                   After reviewing records and inspecting the south hoist car in January 2021, defendant’s

          first expert, a licensed engineer, opined that the “lift did not drop, fall, or even overspeed” during

          the first incident (NYSCEF 138 at 11). After reviewing records and inspecting both hoist cars in

          January 2021, the second expert, a biomechanical engineer, opined that the force involved in

          both incidents was within the normal safe operating parameters of a hoist (NYSCEF 139 at 13).

          Deposition Testimony of Non-Party Witnesses

                   Several employees of non-party subcontractors were involved in the north hoist car

          incident. An Alubuild Construction employee testified that “instead of stopping the hoist, it just

          moved to the side and hit really hard on the bottom part of the hoist” (NYSCEF128 at 16).

                   An electrical worker employed by FSG Electric (FSG) was involved in both the south

          and north car incidents, and testified that the south hoist car became uncontrollable, “stopped real

          hard and it shaked (sic)” and that the north hoist car hit the ground hard (NYSCEF 83 at 19, 20).

          FSG’s foreman testified that it was “like a free fall” and they were thrown around (NYSCEF 84

          at 13,19), while FSG’s project manager testified that the north hoist car came to an abrupt stop

          (NYSCEF 88 at 22). An FSG electrical worker testified that the car dropped and hit something

          on the bottom (NYSCEF 85 at 42).

                                                  II.     ANALYSIS

                   A party moving for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 “must make a prima facie

          showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to

          demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                        Page 3 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

           [* 3]
                                                        3 of 12
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          324 [1986]). The “facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party”

          (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation

          omitted]).

                   Once the moving party has met this prima facie burden, the burden shifts to the non-

          moving party to furnish evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a material issue of fact

          (Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324). The moving party’s “[f]ailure to make such prima facie showing

          requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers” (id.).

                                              A.      Labor Law § 240(1)

                   Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on his Labor Law §

          240(1) claim because defendants failed to provide him with proper protection against harm

          directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity on the hoist cars, which

          malfunctioned and caused him injury. Defendants contend that plaintiff was not exposed to a

          gravity-related risk because redundant safety devices functioned properly, allowing the hoists to

          come to a stop without disrupting their normal and safe operation.

                   Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, contractors, and their

          agents to protect workers from risk inherent in elevated work sites. To succeed on a cause of

          action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), the plaintiff must establish that an owner or contractor

          failed to provide appropriate safety devices at an elevated work site and that such violation was

          the proximate cause of his injuries (see Rivas v Seward Park Hous. Corp., 219 AD3d 59, 63 [1st

          Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

                   Plaintiff has established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law

          § 240(1) claim as it undisputed that the hoists malfunctioned during the incidents. Multiple non-

          party witnesses, in addition to plaintiff and defendants’ own witness, provided unrefuted

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                       Page 4 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

           [* 4]
                                                        4 of 12
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          testimony that the south hoist car became uncontrollable, stopped hard, and shook, while the

          north hoist car came to an abrupt stop. Such malfunctions are covered incidents under Labor

          Law § 240(1) (see e.g., Ladd v Thor 680 Madison Ave. LLC, 212 AD3d 107 [1st Dept 2022]

          [hoist is enumerated safety device and Labor Law § 240(1) is violated when it proves inadequate

          in keeping plaintiff safe while engaging in elevation-related activity]; Rich v 125 W. 31st St.

          Assocs., LLC, 92 AD3d 422 [1st Dept 2012] [plaintiff granted summary judgment as he was

          injured when hoist in which he was riding began to function erratically, stopping and starting

          again, and ultimately free falling into basement and coming to rest on springs at bottom];

          Campbell v Columbus Centre LLC, 48 AD3d 323 [1st Dept 2008] [plaintiff properly granted

          summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) claim where hoist suddenly dropped down shaft,

          causing plaintiff to fall]).

                    Moreover, the fact that the redundant safety devices may have worked and kept plaintiff

          from sustaining more injury is irrelevant (see Rich, 92 AD3d 433 [“although the hoist’s safety

          mechanism engaged, and prevented plaintiff and his coworkers from suffering more serious

          injuries, this does not defeat plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment”]).

                    While defendants rely on their experts’ opinions to argue that neither malfunction

          disrupted the normal and safe operation of the hoists, the opinions about how the hoists

          performed on the day of the incidents are speculative as neither expert observed the incidents and

          both examined the hoists months after the incidents occurred (see Serrano v TED Gen. Contr.,

          157 AD3d 474, 474 [1st Dept 2018] [finding expert testimony speculative where it was not based

          on conditions at time of accident and thus insufficient to rebut plaintiffs credible testimony];

          Santiago v Burlington Coat Factory, 112 AD3d 514 [1st Dept 2013] [as no evidence that expert

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                       Page 5 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

            [* 5]
                                                        5 of 12
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          inspected ladder when it was in same condition as it was on accident date, expert’s findings

          conclusory]).

                   Defendants thus fail to raise a triable issue as to their liability under Labor Law § 240(1),

          and, therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on this claim is granted, and defendants’

          motion for summary dismissal of the claim is denied.

                                               B.      Labor Law § 241(6)

                   As plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1)

          claim, it is unnecessary to address his Labor Law § 241(6) claim as his damages are the same

          under either theory of liability and he may only recover once, thereby rendering the issue

          academic (see Cronin v NY City Tr. Auth., 143 AD3d 419, 420 [1st Dept 2016]). However, to

          aid any potential appellate review, it is addressed.

                   Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated multiple sections of the Industrial Code, and

          contends that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Labor Law § 241(6) based on

          defendants’ violation of 12 NYCRR § 23-7.2(g). Defendants oppose and move to dismiss

          plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on all of plaintiffs’ pleaded violations (NYSCEF 92).

                   To the extent plaintiff’s opposition relies on the Industrial Code provisions addressed

          herein, the remaining provisions enumerated in the Bill of Particulars are deemed waived (see

          Cardenas v One State St., LLC, 68 AD3d 436, 438 [1st Dept 2009]).

                   Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on premises owners and contractors at

          construction sites to provide reasonable and adequate safety to workers. To establish a claim

          under the statute, a plaintiff must show that a specific, applicable Industrial Code regulation was

          violated, and that the violation caused the complained-of injury (Cappabianca v Skanska USA

          Bldg. Inc., 99 AD3d 139, 146, 950 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept 2012] [internal citations omitted]).

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                         Page 6 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

           [* 6]
                                                         6 of 12
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                                                 1. 12 NYCRR § 23-7.2(g)

                   Plaintiff argues that defendants’ failure to waterproof wiring and electrical equipment, in

          violation of 12 NYCRR 23-7.2(g), caused an explosion or short circuit which lead to the south

          hoist car malfunctioning. Defendants maintain that the regulation is not specifically sufficient to

          find liability under Labor Law § 241(6) and in any case, it was not violated.

                   12 NYCRR 23-7.2(g), titled “Wiring,” provides that:

                   Wiring and other electrical equipment shall be of proper quality and properly installed.
                   Electrical installations shall be in accordance with the 1971 National Electrical Code.
                   Hoistway wiring may consist of heavy-duty rubber-covered traveling cable. All wiring
                   and other electrical equipment exposed to the elements shall be weatherproof.

                   While it seems that no caselaw exists regarding this particular subsection, 12 NYCRR 23-

          7.2(g) is sufficiently specific to support a claim under Labor Law § 241(6) (see e.g., Misicki v

          Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 515 [2009] [industrial code provision “must mandate compliance

          with concrete specifications and not simply declare general safety standards or reiterate

          common-law principles”]).

                   Plaintiff argues that there is evidence that the hoist malfunction(s) were caused when

          rainwater entered an electrical box, namely, the testimony of S&E’s hoist repair mechanic who

          allegedly stated that the rainwater caused an explosion or short circuit, and also admitted that

          wiring and electrical equipment related to the hoist tower and cars were not waterproof.

          Defendants deny that the mechanic testified to the facts asserted by plaintiff.

                   Absent a definition of “waterproof,” it is unclear whether the fact that heavy rain is able

          to penetrate into the hoist switches and mechanism means that the hoist was not waterproof.

          Moreover, the mechanic testified he added “water protection” to the hoist connector, which was

          not further defined and it is unclear whether that means it was not waterproof beforehand.

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                        Page 7 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

           [* 7]
                                                         7 of 12
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                   As neither party submitted evidence showing whether or not the regulation was violated,

          neither motion is granted.

                                            2.       12 NYCRR § 23-1.5(c)(3)

                   Defendant argues that plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated upon 12 NYCRR

          23-1(c)(3) must be dismissed because the regulation was not violated as the hoists were kept

          sound and operable. Plaintiff contends that it is undisputed that the hoist cars routinely

          malfunctioned.

                   12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3), titled, “Conditions equipment and safeguards,” mandates that:

                   All safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and
                   shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if
                   damaged.

                   As it is undisputed that the hoists malfunctioned, defendants do not meet their prima facie

          burden of showing that this particular regulation was not violated (see Nicholson v Sabey Data

          Ctr. Props., LLC, 205 AD3d 620, 621 [1st Dept 2022] [testimony that plaintiff had problem with

          equipment before accident enough to establish triable issue of fact under Labor Law § 241(6)

          based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3)]).

                                       3.        12 NYCRR §§ 23-6.1(d) & 23-7.2(i)

                   Defendants argue that these regulations are inapplicable, while plaintiff asserts that the

          hoist cars were overused and frequently overloaded in violation of the statute.

                   12 NYCRR 23-6.1(d) titled, “Loading,” directs that:

                   Material hoisting equipment shall not be loaded in excess of the live load for which it was
                   designed as specified by the manufacturer. Where there is any hazard to persons, all loads
                   shall be properly trimmed to prevent dislodgment of any portions of such loads during
                   transit. Suspended loads shall be securely slung and properly balanced before they are set
                   in motion.

                   12 NYCRR 23-7.2(i), titled, “Materials carried on personnel hoists,” states,

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                         Page 8 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

           [* 8]
                                                          8 of 12
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                   Personnel hoists may be used for carrying material providing the rated load capacity of
                   the hoists are not exceeded. When materials are being carried on such a hoist, only the
                   person necessary for handling such materials shall be permitted to ride in the car, in
                   addition to the operator. When concentrated loads are carried in such a hoist car, such
                   loads shall not exceed 25 percent of the rated load.

                   Here, there was no evidence that the hoists cars were “overloaded” or otherwise

          improperly loaded, and thus defendants are entitled to dismissal of the claim related to these

          regulations (see Booth v Seven World Trade Co., L.P., 82 AD3d 499, 501 [1st Dept 2011] [trial

          court properly found industrial regulation insufficient to support Labor Law § 241(6) where there

          was insufficient evidence in record]).

                                             4.      12 NYCRR § 23-9.2(a)

                   Defendant argue that they did not violate the regulation because they did not have the

          requisite notice required thereby (NYSCEF 143 at 24).

                   12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a), titled, “Maintenance,” provides that:

                   All power-operated equipment shall be maintained in good repair and in proper operating
                   condition at all times. Sufficient inspections of adequate frequency shall be made of such
                   equipment to insure such maintenance. Upon discovery, any structural defect or unsafe
                   condition in such equipment shall be corrected by necessary repairs or replacement. The
                   servicing and repair of such equipment shall be performed by or under the supervision of
                   designated persons. Any servicing or repairing of such equipment shall be performed
                   only while such equipment is at rest.

                   While the first two sentences of the regulation have been found insufficiently specific, the

          rest of the regulation is sufficiently specific (see Misicki v Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 521

          [2009]). A violation of this regulation requires a showing that an injury was caused by “a

          previously identified and unremedied structural defect or unsafe condition” (id. at 520-521).

                   As it has not yet been established what caused the hoists to malfunction, defendants have

          not demonstrated that the alleged unsafe condition was not “previously identified and

          unremedied.”

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                       Page 9 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

           [* 9]
                                                        9 of 12
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                                C.      Labor Law § 200 & Common Law Negligence

                 Plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims are also academic as the

          damages are the same and plaintiff may only recover once under any Labor Law theory (see

          Viruet v Purvis Holdings LLC, 198 AD3d 587 [1st Dept 2021]). Nevertheless, the claims are

          addressed.

                 Plaintiff argues that S&E is liable under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence

          because it controlled the hoist tower and cars, created the dangerous condition that caused the

          incidents, and had notice of these conditions. In opposition and in support of their motion to

          dismiss, defendants contend that they did not create or have notice of any defective conditions,

          nor did they exercise exclusive control over the hoist.

                 Labor Law § 200, which codifies the common law duty to provide a safe workplace, is

          only implicated where there is a finding that defendants were negligent. “Claims for personal

          injury under the statute and the common law fall into two broad categories: those arising from an

          alleged defect or dangerous condition existing on the premises and those arising from the manner

          in which the work was performed. Where an existing defect or dangerous condition caused the

          injury, liability attaches if the owner or general contractor created the condition or had actual or

          constructive notice of it. Where the injury was caused by the manner and means of the work,

          including the equipment used, the owner or general contractor is liable if it actually exercised

          supervisory control over the injury-producing work” (Cappabianca v Skanska USA Bldg. Inc., 99

          AD3d 139, 143-144 [1st Dept 2012] [internal citations omitted]).

                 Here, the alleged issue relates to an unsafe condition, rather than the manner and means

          of the work performed by plaintiff. As the cause of the malfunctions has not yet been

          established, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that S&E created or had notice of the unsafe

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                       Page 10 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

            [* 10]
                                                       10 of 12
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

          condition(s) at issue, and for the same reason, defendants fail to show that they neither created

          nor had notice of the unsafe condition.

                                                    D.      Affirmative defense

                    Finally, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ affirmative defense of plaintiff’s

          comparative negligence related to his claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) is also

          academic given the grant of judgment under Labor Law § 240(1). However, if considered for

          appellate review, the motion would be denied as to the south hoist car accident only as a

          plaintiff’s comparative negligence is a viable defense to Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims,

          and defendants’ assertion that plaintiff could have, but failed to, engage the emergency stop

          function sufficiently raises a triable issue as to plaintiff’s comparative fault.

                                                  III.    CONCLUSION

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED, that plaintiff’s motion (seq. two) is granted to the extent of:

                    (1)    granting him partial summary judgment on liability as to his Labor Law § 240(1)

                           claim against defendants Broadway Owner LLC, SL Green Realty Corp., and

                           S&E Bridge &Scaffold LLC;

                    (2)    as to his Labor Law § 241(6) claim, his motion is denied as to a violation of 12

                           NYCRR 23-7.2(g);

                    (3)    as to his Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims, his motion is

                           denied; and

                    (4)    denying his motion to strike defendants’ affirmative defense of comparative

                           negligence;

                    And it is further

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                          Page 11 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

           [* 11]
                                                         11 of 12
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 157044/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 147                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/29/2024

                   ORDERED, that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (seq. three) is granted to the

          extent of dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) clam predicated on violations of 12 NYCRR

          §§ 23-6.1(d) & 23-7.2(i), and is otherwise denied;

                   ORDERED, that the parties appear for a settlement/trial scheduling conference on August

          7, 2024 at 9:30 am, at 71 Thomas Steet, Room 305, New York, New York.

                   3/29/2024
                     DATE                                                       DAVID B. COHEN, J.S.C.
           CHECK ONE:                 CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                      GRANTED             DENIED       GRANTED IN PART              X   OTHER

           APPLICATION:               SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

           CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:      INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT            REFERENCE

           157044/2021 PETRUSO, GIOVANNI vs. 185 BROADWAY OWNER LLC ET AL                           Page 12 of 12
           Motion No. 002 003

          [* 12]
                                                       12 of 12