Court Opinion

ID: 9952463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 20:09:06.584165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:39.326866
License: Public Domain

Rivera v F & S Contr., LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30833(U)
                     March 14, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157618/2019
                 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.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 04:51 PM                                                                   INDEX NO. 157618/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                             PART                              58
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          157618/2019
             CARMEN RIVERA,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE         03/10/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         004
                                                 -v-
             F & S CONTRACTING, LLC, F & S CONTRACTING
             GROUP INC., SABEY CONSTRUCTION, INC, INTERGATE                                        DECISION + ORDER ON
             MANHATTAN LLC                                                                               MOTION

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 65, 66, 67, 68, 69,
            70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
            were read on this motion to/for                                       SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)                 .

                      In this personal injury action, plaintiff moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for an order

            granting summary judgment against defendants as to the issue of liability.

                                                              I.         BACKGROUND

                      Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a summons and verified complaint on August 5,

            2019, alleging that she sustained personal injuries when a construction fence fell on her

            (NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1). Plaintiff contends that “[o]n July 25, 2018, at approximately 6:05 a.m.,

            [she] was walking to work at 1 Police Plaza, New York as a New York City Police Officer, when

            a barrier/chain link fence surrounding a construction site suddenly, and without warning, fell on

            top of [her] at premises known as 375 Pearl Street, New York, New York. It knocked [her] to

            the ground causing a wrist and various other injuries” (NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69).

                      Defendants joined issue by service of their answer on October 25, 2019 (NYSCEF DOC.

            NO. 3).

             157618/2019 RIVERA, CARMEN vs. F & S CONTRACTING, LLC                                                   Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 04:51 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 157618/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

                   In response to a Notice to Admit served by plaintiff, defendants admitted that defendant

            F&S Contracting Group, Inc. (F&S) installed the fence at issue (NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23).

                   On August 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion, which was denied on

            February 3, 2021 “without prejudice to renew at the completion of discovery.” (NYSCEF DOC.

            NO. 44 at pg. 6).

                   Two F&S employees were deposed and testified, as pertinent here, that the fence at issue

            was a plastic Yodock fence, described as “orange and white with a four foot fence on top that’s

            fastened through the barrier and there was mesh on the fence,” with the barriers secured to the

            ground by filling them with water. The fence itself was a typical chain link fence, approximately

            four feet long (NYSCEF DOC. NO. 75).

                   F&S built and installed the fence, which included a metal post inserted into each barrier.

            When shown a video of the incident, F&S’s chief engineer testified that it looked like high winds

            caused the fence to fall over, which was not supposed to happen. He also testified that the fence

            was properly erected, and that the potential for wind velocity is taken into account when building

            fences (NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76).

                   According to plaintiff’s expert, in his professional opinion, “the barrier/fence in question

            was not properly installed, shored, constructed or maintained. The only explanation, based on my

            years of education, training and experience, is that the Defendants were responsible for the

            erection of this barrier/fence, as well as responsible for this accident, and the barrier/fence would

            not have fallen had its installation been done properly.” In particular, the expert opines that the

            construction and installation of the fence did not take into the account the potential for high wind

            gusts (NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77).

             157618/2019 RIVERA, CARMEN vs. F & S CONTRACTING, LLC                                 Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                           2 of 5
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 04:51 PM                                               INDEX NO. 157618/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

                   Defendant’s expert, a certified meteorologist, states that the relevant weather data records

            show that a cluster of showers and thunderstorms began to move toward the accident location on

            the morning of the accident, and that in his opinion, “based upon a reasonable degree of

            meteorological certainty,” wind gusts of 55 to 60 mph were present in the subject location at the

            time of the accident, and the gusts “were not forecasted or foreseeable.” (NYSCEF DOC. NO.

            84).

                                                    II.     ANALYSIS

                   “The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of

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

            material issues of fact.” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986] citing Winegrad v

            New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Once the movant has made a prima facie

            showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to “present evidentiary facts in admissible form

            sufficient to raise a genuine, triable issue of fact.” (Casper v Cushman & Wakefield, 74 AD3d

            669, 669 [1st Dept 2010], lv dismissed 16 NY3d 766 [2011] [internal quotation marks and

            citation omitted]).

                   Plaintiff contends that defendants may be held liable pursuant to res ipsa loquitur, on the

            ground that the fence was in their exclusive control and it would not have fallen on her in the

            absence of their negligence. Defendants raise several arguments in opposition, including that

            res ipsa loquitur does not apply as the accident occurred on a very windy day, thereby creating an

            issue of fact as to whether the fence was properly installed and secured.

                   An accident subject to a res ipsa loquitur claim “(1) must be of a kind which ordinarily

            does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or

            instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; [and] (3) it must not have been due

             157618/2019 RIVERA, CARMEN vs. F & S CONTRACTING, LLC                               Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                           3 of 5
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 04:51 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 157618/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

            to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.” (Morejon v Rais Constr. Co.,

            7 NY3d 203, 209 [2006][internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). “It is the rare case in

            which a plaintiff will be entitled to…[summary judgment] because the prima facie proof is so

            convincing that the inference [of negligence] arising therefrom is inescapable if not rebutted by

            other evidence.’” (Tora v GVP AG, 31 AD3d 341, 342 [1st Dept 2006], quoting Shinshine Corp.

            v Kinney Sys., 173 AD2d 293, 294 [1st Dept 1991]). The granting of summary judgment based

            on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is appropriate solely in “exceptional case[s]” and not where

            there are issues of fact with respect to defendants’ liability (Morejon, 7 NY3d at 212; see also

            Jainsinghani v One Vanderbilt Owner, LLC, 162 AD3d 603, 604 [1st Dept 2018]).

                   Here, even assuming that plaintiff established all of the elements of a res ipsa loquitur

            claim, defendants raise a triable issue through evidence that there were unexpectedly high winds

            at the time of the accident. In Tora, the plaintiff was injured when a piece of a sidewalk shed

            toppled over as a result of strong winds. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the

            trial court’s grant of summary judgment on liability to plaintiff, finding that the “[d]efendants’

            contention that unusually strong gusts of wind caused the shed to lift and injure plaintiff is

            sufficient to negate, at least for purposes of summary judgment, the first element of res ipsa”

            namely “that the event was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of

            negligence.” (31 AD3d at 343; see also Bunn v City of New York, 180 AD3d 550 [1st Dept 2020]

            [res ipsa loquitur inapplicable to accident where sign dislodged from metal post and fell on

            plaintiff, as alleged defect could have been caused by number of factors, including

            “wind/weather conditions”]; Zecevic v LAN Cargo S.A., 137 AD3d 465 [1st Dept 2016] [trial

            court properly denied summary judgment to plaintiff as factual issue existed as to whether

            unusually strong wind caused crate to fall on plaintiff]; Ryan v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in

             157618/2019 RIVERA, CARMEN vs. F & S CONTRACTING, LLC                                 Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                           4 of 5
[* 4]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/14/2024 04:51 PM                                                           INDEX NO. 157618/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2024

            City of New York, Inc., 96 AD3d 551 [1st Dept 2012] [summary judgment properly denied as

            sidewalk bridge collapsed in windy conditions]; Dos Santos v Power Auth. of State of N.Y., 85

            AD3d 718 [2d Dept 2011] [plaintiff did not establish res ipsa as door collapse may have been

            caused by strong wind], lv denied 20 NY3d 856 [2013]; Lofstad v S&R Fisheries, Inc., 45 AD3d

            739 [2d Dept 2007] [triable issue existed as to whether shed blown off roof by 70-mile-per-hour

            winds]).

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

            given the above result.

                                                          III.         CONCLUSION

                      Accordingly, it is hereby

                      ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability is denied; and it is

            further

                      ORDERED, that the parties appear for a settlement/trial scheduling conference before this

            Court on May 29, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., 71 Thomas Street, Room 305, New York, New York.

                      3/14/2024
                        DATE                                                               DAVID B. COHEN, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                        X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED                X    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                             SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN               FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             157618/2019 RIVERA, CARMEN vs. F & S CONTRACTING, LLC                                           Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 004

                                                                     5 of 5
[* 5]