Court Opinion

ID: 9930957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:08:53.877414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:31.866143
License: Public Domain

Yzaga v Dal 8th Ave. LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30374(U)
                    February 1, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 524450/2019
                 Judge: Wayne Saitta
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 02/01/2024 03:16 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 524450/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                                                                At an IAS Term, Part 29 of the Supreme Court
                                                                of the State of New York, held in and for the
                                                                County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic
                                                                Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 1st day of
                                                                February 2024.

            P R E S E N T:

            HON. WAYNE SAITTA, Justice.
            ------------------------------------------------------------X
            SEBASTIAN YZAGA,
                                                                                    Index No. 524450/2019
                                                   Plaintiff
                                                                                    Decision and Order
                   -against-                                                        MS #2

            DAL 8th AVENUE LLC and 412 8th AVENUE LLC,

                                                    Defendants
            ------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following papers read on this motion:
                                                                            NYSCEF Doc Nos
            Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/
            Petition/Affidavits (Affirmations) and
            Exhibits                                                        34-37, 39-50
            Cross-motions Affidavits (Affirmations)
            and Exhibits
            Answering Affidavit (Affirmation)                               55-59
            Reply Affidavit (Affirmation)                                   61
            Supplemental Affidavit (Affirmation)

                   This action arises from a construction accident that occurred on or about October

            23, 2019 at 420 8th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY (the Premises). The Premises is owned by

            Defendant DAL 8th AVENUE LLC (Defendant Owner). This action was discontinued as

            against Defendant 412 8th AVENUE LLC.

                   Plaintiff was an employee of non-party Construction Partners. Construction

            Partners was hired by Defendant Owner to do a buildout of an apartment on the fourth

            floor at the Premises.

                                                           1 of 6
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2024 03:16 PM                                            INDEX NO. 524450/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                   Plaintiff had been assigned the task of plastering and floor woodwork. Wilther

            Patino Vega, an owner of Construction Partners, alleges that he told Plaintiff he would

            need a chisel to do the flooring woodwork due to the existence of nails in the floorboards.

                   There was no chisel on site, so Vega went to get a chisel. Vega claims that he

            instructed Plaintiff to clean until he returned with a chisel.

                   Plaintiff was injured while using a circular saw to cut into the floor when he struck

            a nail, and a piece came up and struck him in the eye. Plaintiff claims the saw lacked a

            safety guard.

                   Plaintiff was not wearing any eye protection at the time of his injury. At the time

            of the accident, Plaintiff asserts that he had not been provided equipment or protection

            at the Premises. Plaintiff was not told to wear eye protection and was not made aware of

            any equipment or protection being present on the Premises.

                   Plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of Labor Law §241(6) and §200.

                   Defendant Owner moves for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint.

            Labor Law § 200

                   Defendant Owner moves for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims

            pursuant to Labor Law § 200.

                   “Section 200 of the Labor Law is a codification of the common-law duty of a

            landowner to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work” (Zukowski v. Powell

            Cove Estates Home Owners Association, 187 AD3d 1099, 1101 [2d Dept 2020], quoting

            Lombardi v. Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 294 [1992]). Plaintiff’s accident arose not from a

            dangerous condition at the premises but by the means and methods employed. The is no

            evidence presented that Defendant owner supervised or controlled Plaintiff’s work.

                                                          2

                                                       2 of 6
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2024 03:16 PM                                         INDEX NO. 524450/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                  Plaintiff takes no position as to this portion of Defendant Owner’s motion.

                  Therefore, this portion of Defendant Owner’s motion seeking summary judgment

            as to Labor Law § 200 must be granted.

            Labor Law § 241(6)

                  Defendant Owner moves for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant

            to Labor Law § 241(6).

                  Labor Law § 241(6) applies to “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents,

            except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or

            control the work, when constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in

            connection therewith”. Here, moving Defendant is the Owner of the Premises and Labor

            Law § 241(6) applies.

                  “Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty upon an owner [an owner’s

            agent] or general contractor to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for

            workers and to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the

            Commissioner of the Department of Labor” (Grant v. City of New York, 109 AD3d

            961,963 [2d Dept 2013]). “To establish a cause of action for a violation of Labor Law §

            241(6), a plaintiff must plead and prove a violation of a specific provision of the Code”

            (Galarraga v. City of New York, 54 AD3d 308, 309 [2d Dept 2008]).

                  Plaintiff has plead violations of several sections of the Industrial Code, but only

            opposes dismissal of § 23–1.5(c)(3) and § 23–1.8(a). Section 23–1.5(c)(3) covers

            equipment and safeguards and states:

                  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.

                                                        3

                                                     3 of 6
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2024 03:16 PM                                            INDEX NO. 524450/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

            Section 23–1.8(a) specifically covers eye protection and states:

                   Approved eye protection equipment suitable for the hazard involved shall be
                   provided for and shall be used by all persons while employed in welding, burning
                   or cutting operations or in chipping, cutting or grinding any material from which
                   particles may fly, or while engaged in any other operation which may endanger the
                   eyes.

                   Plaintiff claims he was not provided with safety goggles and that the circular saw

            he used lacked a safety guard.

                   Defendant argues that Plaintiff was instructed to engage in cleaning and plastering

            while he awaited a chisel to be brought to the jobsite prior to engaging in wood floorwork

            and therefore Defendant had no duty to provide Plaintiff with eye protection since he was

            supposed to be cleaning, not working on the floor.

                   There can be no liability under Labor Law §241(6) where a plaintiff’s own acts

            prove the sole proximate cause of the accident (see Eddy v. John Hummel Custom Bldrs.,

            Inc., 147 AD3d 16 [2d Dept 2016]).

                   Defendant argues that Plaintiff understood that he was not supposed to start wood

            floorwork until the chisel was brought to the jobsite, but Plaintiff did so anyway using a

            circular saw that he sought out at the jobsite.

                   Plaintiff admitted to the statement in Defendants Statement of Facts that Plaintiff’s

            boss told Plaintiff that he would need to go out and obtain a chisel in order for them to

            start working on the floor since a chisel would be necessary to perform that work.

                   However, Vega testified that he never specifically instructed Plaintiff not to work

            on the floor until he brought the chisel.

                   Vega testified at his deposition:

                   Q. Did you make it clear to him that he was not to work on the floors until you
                   arrived back with the chisel?

                                                          4

                                                        4 of 6
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2024 03:16 PM                                              INDEX NO. 524450/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                   A. Not specifically. I did not tell him not to work in the area.
                   Q. I didn't ask you if you didn't specifically tell him to work in the area. I asked you
                   if you specifically told him not to start working on the floors.
                   A. No, I do not recall saying that.

                   Plaintiff contests that he was instructed not to work on the floor until Vega brought

            the chisel.

                   Plaintiff did not testify that Vega told him not to work on the floors until he came

            back with the chisel. Defendants’ attorney asked him:

                   Q. Was there a reason you started to cut the wood when the boss told you he wanted
                   the chisel on-site before the work started?
                   A. Yes, I worked.
                   Q. Yes, but why did you start doing the woodwork when the boss told you to wait
                   for the chisel?
                   A. Well, I am standing there he comes in and he sees I am not doing anything he
                   will get rid of me.

                   In those questions, Defendant’s attorney, not Plaintiff, asserts that the boss told

            him to wait for the chisel.

                   Plaintiff’s answer to those questions cannot be read to be an admission that Vega

            told him not to work on the floor until he brought the chisel, particularly in light of Vega’s

            testimony.

                   Thus, there is a question of fact whether Plaintiff was told not to work on the floor

            until Vega returned with the chisel.

                   Plaintiff argues that Industrial Code § 23–1.5(c)(3) was violated because the

            circular saw was missing the safety guard. Defendant denies that the saw was defective

            and that Plaintiff’s injury was caused because he cut the wood using the wrong tool.

                   Plaintiff further argues that Industrial Code § 23–1.8(a) was violated because he

            was not provided with safety goggles. There is a question of fact as to whether there were

            goggles readily available on the site.

                                                          5

                                                       5 of 6
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 02/01/2024 03:16 PM                                            INDEX NO. 524450/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 65                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/01/2024

                   Plaintiff denies that there were googles available while Wilson Ruiz of Construction

            Partners testified that he had made Plaintiff aware of the location of available safety

            glasses on the jobsite.

                   Further, there is a question whether goggles were required to be provided at the

            time of the accident pursuant to § 23–1.8(a). The section requires eye protection be

            provided and used while employed in chipping and cutting. If it is the case that Plaintiff

            was instructed not to begin work on the floor, then Defendant would not have been

            obligated to ensure Plaintiff had goggles at the time of his accident.

                   Finally, the fact that Plaintiff may have been comparatively negligent in failing to

            use googles if they were available, or in using the saw on the jobsite instead of waiting for

            a chisel, is not a bar to his recovery of damages for his personal injury (see Rodriguez v

            City of New York, 31 NY3d 312, 323 [2018]; Quizhpi v. S. Queens Boys & Girls Club, Inc.,

            166 AD3d 683, 685 [2d Dept 2018]).

                   WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the portion Defendants motion for

            summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Labor Law §241(6) is

            Denied; and it is further,

                   ORDERED, the portion Defendants motion for summary judgment dismissing

            Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Labor Law §200 is Granted.

                   This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.

                                                                     E N T E R:

                                                                     _
                                                                     J.S.C.

                                                         6

                                                      6 of 6
[* 6]