Court Opinion

ID: 9956340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 20:11:54.256236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:52.980378
License: Public Domain

Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC v Tishman Constr.
                     Corp. of N.Y.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31028(U)
                     March 27, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 652700/2020
                  Judge: Andrea Masley
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. 652700/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 48
            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

             RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 OWNER LLC, UNITED                                              INDEX NO.         652700/2020
             STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

                                                          Plaintiffs,                               MOTION DATE            N/A

                                                - V -                                               MOTION SEQ. NO.        003
             TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF NEW
             YORK,                                                                                   DECISION+ ORDER ON
                                                                                                           MOTION
                                                          Defendant.

            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

            HON. ANDREA MASLEY:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 90, 91, 92, 93, 94,
            95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116,
            117,118,119
            were read on this motion to/for                                         AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

                   Plaintiff Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC (Riverside) moves pursuant to CPLR
            3025(b) to amend the complaint to add facts concerning: (1) Trimco; (2) the water
            incident; (3) the safety program; (4) engineering and architectural services; and (5)
            subcontractors. (NYSCEF Doc. No. [NYSCEF] 95, Proposed Verified Second Amended
            Complaint.)

                   For the reasons stated on the record on March 26, 2024, Riverside's motion to
            amend is granted. Defendant Tishman Construction Corporation of New York
            (Tishman) shall file an answer by April 16, 2024. If there are no counterclaims, the note
            of issue shall be filed by April 19, 2024. If counterclaims are filed, then Riverside shall
            respond by May 3, 2024. Riverside shall file the note of issue by May 10, 2024. Any
            summary judgment motions must be filed within 30 days of the filing of the note of issue;
            no cross-motions. Riverside shall submit the transcript to be so ordered.

                    "Leave to amend the pleadings shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise
            resulting directly from the delay." (Mccaskey, Davies and Assocs., Inc. v New York City
            Health & Hasps. Corp., 59 NY2d 755, 757 [1983] [internal quotation marks and citations
            omitted].)

                   Tishman's objections to the motion are meritless. "Mere lateness is not a barrier
            to granting the motion to amend. It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice
            to the other side. (Edenwald Contracting Co., Inc. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957,

             652700/2020 RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 vs. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION                                               Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 003

                                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                          INDEX NO. 652700/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

            959 [1983] [Internal quotation marks and citation omitted].) First, Riverside's motion to
            amend filed on August 24, 2023 is timely. Fact discovery was to be completed prior to
            December 2022, but Tishman did not respond to Riverside's requests until March 2023,
            and it was a large volume of documents. (NYSCEF 108, Pia E. Riverso 1 aff ,I3.) It was
            not until August 21, 2023 that Tishman produced its policy. (Id.) The last case
            management order directed expert discovery to close on August 30, 2023 with the note
            of issue to be filed on August 31, 2023. (NYSCEF 89, Order at 1-2.) The parties
            engaged in mediation which was delayed for two months while Tishman's professional
            liability carrier reviewed Riverside's claims. (NYSCEF 108, Riverso aff ,I4.) Judge
            Ramos (ret.) unsuccessfully mediated the matter on July 26, 2023. (Id.) Riverside
            provided Tishman with a copy of the proposed amended complaint on August 15, 2023.
            (Id.) Accordingly, Tishman was aware of the new allegations on August 29, 2023, when
            it conducted the deposition of George Fink, Riverside's expert on the impact of the
            water incident on the project's schedule. (Id. ,i,i11-12.) There was no prejudice from
            the timing of Riverside's motion to amend.

                   Second, Tishman fails to establish prejudice as to the new allegations
            concerning: (1) Trimco; (2) the water incident; (3) the safety program; (4) engineering
            and architectural services; and (5) subcontractors, which were mentioned in the
            Amended Complaint, but expanded upon in the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
            Further, there is no prejudice or surprise when the opponent to the motion to amend a
            complaint was aware of the facts underlying the amendments whether from the initial
            complaint or through discovery. (See Howard v Chalk, 58 AD2d 526, 526 [1st Dept
            1977].) Tishman's strategic decision not to conduct a deposition of a Riverside witness
            or any third party witnesses will not be rewarded. Likewise, having failed to comply with
            the court's scheduling orders, Tishman cannot use this motion to amend to skirt the
            court's preclusion order. (NYSCEF 40, June 13, 2022, Case Management Order.)

                      (1) The Amended Complaint includes Trimco allegations (NYSCEF 93, Amended
                          Complaint ,i,i63-78, 104-119), but Riverside became aware of the newly
                          proposed allegations at depositions that were taken on October 13, 2022, and
                          December 1, 2022. (NYSCEF 92, Riverso aff ,I,I14, 19-20.)

                      (2) The water incident occurred in March 2017 and Riverside litigated the issue
                          with its insurer. (NYSCEF 108, Riverso aff ,i10.) Indeed, Richard Ortiz,
                          Tishman's Senior Project Manager for the Riverside Project, was deposed in
                          June 2021 for that insurance litigation demonstrating Tishman's knowledge of
                          the incident. (Id.) The Amended Complaint includes allegations about the

            1   Riverso is plaintiffs' counsel. (NYSCEF 108, Riverso aff ,i1 .)
                652700/2020 RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 vs. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION              Page 2 of 4
                Motion No. 003

                                                             2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 652700/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

                        curtain wall and water incident. (NYSCEF 93, Amended Complaint ,i,i79[e],
                        87-90.) Tishman had the opportunity to examine Riverside's expert Fink "on
                        his reports and conclusions submitted in the litigation between Riverside and
                        its insurer arising out of the water incident." (NYSCEF 108, Riverso aff ,i12.)
                        Todd Mayo of Capital Project Management, Inc., Tishman's Scheduling
                        Expert, analyzed the impact of the water incident. (Id. ,i13.)

                   (3) Riverside initially asserted gross negligence. (NYSCEF 93, Amended
                       Complaint ,i,i185-189.) In January 2023, Riverside produced its expert report
                       to Tishman on site safety with a section entitled "'Tishman Failures"' which
                       identifies 193 personal injury claims made against the Project. (NYSCEF
                       108, Riverso aff ,I14.) While Tishman did not conduct depositions of
                       witnesses, Tishman deposed Fink "on his conclusions regarding Tishman's
                       failures with respect to safety at the Project." (Id. ,i,i15, 16.)

                   (4) Riverside challenges Tishman's management failures that resulted in the
                       steel subcontract delay and the design and construction defects in the curtain
                       wall. (NYSCEF 93, Amended Complaint ,I79 (a)(b)( c ). Riverside deposed
                       Tishman's employees: Richard Ortiz, Eric Reid, and Mike Carriero rarding
                       supervision of professionals. (NYSCEF 108, Riverso aff ,i17.) For example,
                       during his October 28, 2022 deposition, Ortiz stated that "defects at the top of
                       the house, at the top floors of the building, relating to the curtain wall work"
                       have been discovered, which defects "relate to the design of the rain screen
                       panels at the roof level." (Id. ,i18.) Additionally, Riverside's expert "opined on
                       Tishman's failure to properly manage these scopes of Work and the resulting
                       delays." (Id. ,i19.)

                   (5) Finally, the Amended Complaint includes allegations regarding Tishman's
                       failure to prosecute insurance claims against defaulting subcontractors.
                       (NYSCEF 93, Amended Complaint ,i,i79, 85-86.) Riverside learned further
                       details about Tishman's alleged failure to prosecute such claims during
                       October 13, 2022 and December 1, 2022 depositions of Tishman witnesses.
                       (NYSCEF 108, Riverso aff ,i,i7, 21.) For example, Riverside learned about
                       Tishman's failure to respond to insurer inquires and about five other
                       subcontractor defaults which Riverside seeks to add to the complaint. (Id.)
                       Tishman cannot deny its knowledge of these five defaulting (Sefina Industries
                       Limited v. Tishman Construction Corporation of New York, et al., Supreme
                       Court, New York County, Index No. 160375/2018) nor that Riverside's action
                       partially arose from the work of those subcontractors. (Id. ,I28.)

             652700/2020 RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 vs. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION                   Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 003

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 652700 / 2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03 / 27 / 2024

                   Tishman shall file an answer. Since Riverside has not added any new claims,
            there is no basis for a motion to dismiss which should have been raised on this motion
            in any case. (Ancrum v St. Barnabas Hosp., 301 AD2d 474, 475 [1st Dept 2003] ["We
            have consistently held ... that in an effort to conserve judicial resources, an examination
            of the proposed amendment is warranted" (citations omitted)].) Tishman 's objection to
            Riverso's affidavit is rejected since Riverside submits deposition testimony through the
            Riverso affirmation . (Delta Dallas Alpha Corp. v S. St. Seaport LP, 127 AD3d 419,420
            [1st Dept 2015].) Moreover, the proposed Second Amended Complaint is verified .
            (A&J concrete Corp. v Arker, 54 NY2d 870, 872 [1981].)

                     3/27/2024
                       DATE                                                         ANDREA MASLEY, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                      NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         □ DENIED           GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION :               SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

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

             652700/2020 RIVERSIDE CENTER SITE 5 vs. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION                              Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 003

                                                           4 of 4
[* 4]