Court Opinion

ID: 9962527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:05.369522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.142863
License: Public Domain

Pinzon v Tristar Assoc., LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31346(U)
                     April 17, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157693/2019
                  Judge: Paul A. Goetz
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 04/17/2024 04:24 PM                                                                      INDEX NO. 157693/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 218                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. PAUL A. GOETZ                                                 PART                              47
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          157693/2019
             LUIS PINZON,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE         12/22/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.         006
                                                 -v-
             TRISTAR ASSOCIATES, LLC,GLAM SEAMLESS, LLC,                                              DECISION + ORDER ON
                                                                                                            MOTION
                                                         Defendants.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

             TRISTAR ASSOCIATES, LLC                                                                           Third-Party
                                                                                                         Index No. 595256/2020
                                                       Third-Party Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             GLAM SEAMLESS, LLC

                                                          Third-Party Defendant.
             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

             GLAM SEAMLESS, LLC                                                                            Second Third-Party
                                                                                                         Index No. 595735/2021
                                                        Second Third-Party Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             MINAS CONSTRUCTION, INC.,

                                                        Second Third-Party Defendant.
             --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 136, 137, 138, 139,
            140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174,
            175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195,
            196, 197, 198
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                   .

                      In this Labor Law personal injury action, Second Third-Party Defendant Minas

            Construction Inc. (“Minas”) moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 dismissing

             157693/2019 PINZON, LUIS vs. TRISTAR ASSOCIATES, LLC                                                       Page 1 of 7
             Motion No. 006

                                                                           1 of 7
[* 1]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 04:24 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 157693/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 218                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

            all claims against it by Second Third-Party Plaintiff, Glam Seamless, LLC (“Glam”) for: 1)

            Contribution; 2) Common Law Indemnification; 3) Contractual Indemnification; and 4) Breach

            of Contract for a Failure to Procure Insurance (NYSCEF Doc No 143).

                                                        DISCUSSION

            Summary Judgement Standard

                   It is well settled that ‘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

            demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact’” (Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060,

            1062 [2016], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). “Failure to make

            such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers”

            (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). “Once such a prima facie

            showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce

            evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise material issues of fact which require a

            trial of the action” (Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553-54 [1st Dept 2010]).

                   “The court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is merely to determine if any

            triable issues exist, not to determine the merits of any such issues or to assess credibility”

            (Meridian Mgt. Corp. v Cristi Cleaning Serv. Corp., 70 AD3d 508, 510-11 [1st Dept 2010]

            [internal citations omitted]). The evidence presented in a summary judgment motion must be

            examined “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” (Schmidt v One New York Plaza

            Co. LLC, 153 AD3d 427, 428 [2017], quoting Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339

            [2011]) and bare allegations or conclusory assertions are insufficient to create genuine issues of

            fact (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 [1978]). If there is any doubt as to the

             157693/2019 PINZON, LUIS vs. TRISTAR ASSOCIATES, LLC                                   Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 006

                                                            2 of 7
[* 2]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 04:24 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 157693/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 218                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

            existence of a triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied (Rotuba Extruders

            v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 [1978]).

            Contribution and Common Law Indemnification

                   Minas argues that because it was plaintiff, Luis Pinzon’s, employer when his accident

            occurred Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 bars Glam’s contribution, and common law

            indemnification claims. Glam argues that plaintiff’s injury is a “grave injury”, an exception in

            Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and thus there is no bar on liability. Workers Compensation

            Law § 11 states:

                           An employer shall not be liable for contribution or indemnity to any
                           third person based upon liability for injuries sustained by an
                           employee acting within the scope of his or her employment for such
                           employer unless such third person proves through competent
                           medical evidence that such employee has sustained a “grave injury”
                           which shall mean only one or more of the following: death,
                           permanent and total loss of use or amputation of an arm, leg, hand
                           or foot, loss of multiple fingers, loss of multiple toes, paraplegia or
                           quadriplegia, total and permanent blindness, total and permanent
                           deafness, loss of nose, loss of ear, permanent and severe facial
                           disfigurement, loss of an index finger or an acquired injury to the
                           brain caused by an external physical force resulting in permanent
                           total disability.

                   Here, it is undisputed that plaintiff was an employee of Minas at the time of his accident

            (NYSCEF Docs No 155 ¶ 7; 171 ¶ 7). During plaintiff’s accident a screw flew into plaintiff’s

            right eye, requiring surgery to remove his eye and replace it with A prosthetic eye (id. at ¶ 2).

            Minas and Glam dispute whether the loss of one eye constitutes a “grave injury” under Workers

            Compensation Law § 11.

                   “The categories of grave injuries listed in section 11, providing the sole bases for a third-

            party action, are deliberately both narrowly and completely described; the list, both exhaustive

            and not illustrative, is not intended to be extended absent further legislative action” (Fleming v

             157693/2019 PINZON, LUIS vs. TRISTAR ASSOCIATES, LLC                                    Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 006

                                                            3 of 7
[* 3]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 04:24 PM                                                           INDEX NO. 157693/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 218                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

            Graham, 10 NY3d 296, 300 [2008] [internal quotation marks removed]). “[L]oss of vision in one

            eye—is not a ‘grave injury’ under Workers' Compensation Law § 11” (Jarvis v Crotona Assoc.,

            LLC, 14 AD3d 423, 424 [1st Dept 2005]). Since, a court must “construe statutory words in light

            of their plain meaning without resort to forced or unnatural interpretations” the loss of one eye

            does not constitute “total and permanent blindness” and therefore does not amount to a

            statutorily defined grave injury in itself (id.). Further, in both Giblin v Pine Ridge Log Homes,

            Inc., 42 AD3d 705 [3d Dept 2007]; and Pilato v Nigel Enterprises, Inc., 48 AD3d 1133 [4th Dept

            2008] the Courts held that the loss of a single eye does not constitute a “permanent and severe

            facial disfigurement” as a matter of law.

                     “What constitutes ‘permanent and severe facial disfigurement’ is unlike most of the other

            enumerated ‘grave’ injuries, which are, on the whole, amenable to ‘objectively ascertainable’

            determinations as a matter of law” (Fleming, 10 NY3d at 300). “[P]ermanency and severity are

            both conditions precedent to a finding of ‘facial disfigurement’” (id.). “[S]everity implies a highly

            limited class of disfiguring injuries beyond minor scarring or lacerations” (id. at 301). Disfigurement

            means “that which impairs or injures the beauty, symmetry or appearance of a person or thing; that which

            renders unsightly, misshapen or imperfect or deforms in some manner” (id.) The Court of Appeals in

            Fleming summarized the standard stating:

                             [A]n injury disfigures the face when it detrimentally alters the plaintiff's
                             natural beauty, symmetry or appearance, or otherwise deforms. A
                             disfigurement is severe if a reasonable person viewing the plaintiff's face
                             in its altered state would regard the condition as abhorrently distressing,
                             highly objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly. In finding that a
                             disfigurement is severe, plaintiff's injury must greatly alter the appearance
                             of the face from its appearance before the accident.
            (id.).
                     In Pilato, the Fourth Department found that the loss of an eye did not constitute “permanent and

            severe facial disfigurement” when, “there appears to be some scarring around his right eye that is barely

            visible, his right eye appears slightly more open than his left eye and the color of his prosthetic eye is

             157693/2019 PINZON, LUIS vs. TRISTAR ASSOCIATES, LLC                                            Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 006

                                                               4 of 7
[* 4]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 04:24 PM                                                         INDEX NO. 157693/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 218                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

            slightly darker than his right eye” (Pilato, 48 AD3d at 1135). Similarly in Giblin, the Third Department

            also found the loss of an eye was not a “grave injury” when “the photographs of plaintiff wearing the

            prosthesis demonstrate little difference, if any, in his facial appearance before and after the accident”

            (Giblin, 42 AD3d at 707).

                    Here, Minas submits the IME report of Dr. David L. Abramson who states “[plaintiff] currently

            presents with a right eye prosthesis and states there is no facial scarring. I have taken

            photographs of the area around the right globe, and there is no evidence of any facial scarring

            present” (NYSCEF Doc No 152). Minas submits one of the photographs taken by Dr. Abramson

            which shows that plaintiff has no significant scarring and is not “abhorrently distressing, highly

            objectionable, shocking or extremely unsightly.” While Glam argues that plaintiff testified that people in

            public notice he is wearing a prosthetic eye, his condition does not meet the statutory definition for a

            “permanent and severe facial disfigurement.” Therefore, Minas cannot be held liable to Glam for

            contribution or common law indemnification as recovery is barred by Workers’ Compensation

            Law § 11.

                    Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted in Minas’s favor on Glam’s first and

            second causes of action and they will be dismissed.

            Contractual Indemnification and Breach of Contract

                    Minas argues that the contractual indemnification and breach of contract for a failure to

            procure insurance causes of action must be dismissed because there is no written contract

            between Minas and Glam for the work performed. Glam opposes arguing that even absent an

            express written contract, there is an issue of fact regarding the parties contractual agreement.

                    Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 does not bar indemnification and contribution claims

            based on provisions in a written contract. Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 specifically

            provides that:

             157693/2019 PINZON, LUIS vs. TRISTAR ASSOCIATES, LLC                                          Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 006

                                                               5 of 7
[* 5]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 04:24 PM                                                         INDEX NO. 157693/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 218                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

                             For purposes of this section the terms “indemnity” and “contribution” shall
                             not include a claim or cause of action for contribution or indemnification
                             based upon a provision in a written contract entered into prior to the
                             accident or occurrence by which the employer had expressly agreed to
                             contribution to or indemnification of the claimant or person asserting the
                             cause of action for the type of loss suffered.

                    While, Glam admits that there is no written contract between the parties it argues that the emails

            between the parties, the conduct of the parties, and payments by Glam to Minas shows that there was a

            meeting of the minds sufficient to give rise to an enforceable contract. Glam relies on Flores v Lower E.

            Side Serv. Ctr., Inc., where the Court of Appeals ruled that the language of Workers’ Compensation Law

            § 11 does not explicitly require that the contract with the indemnification provision be signed and

            common law principles of contract formation should apply (Flores v Lower E. Side Serv. Ctr., Inc., 4

            NY3d 363 [2005]). However, while the ruling in Flores states that common law principles can apply to

            enforce an unsigned contract, it still requires the existence of a written contract. Indeed, “[w]hen it

            enacted Workers' Compensation Law § 11, the Legislature clearly intended to limit the number of

            indemnification claims against employers by requiring that indemnification agreements be memorialized

            in a written contract.” (id. at 369).

                    Here, while the correspondences and behavior of the parties may indicate that a contract existed

            under common-law principles, Glam has failed to submit written correspondence that Minas agreed to

            indemnify Glam, creating an exception to the bar on employer liability under Workers’ Compensation

            Law § 11. Further, Glam has also failed to submit any evidence that Minas agreed to procure

            insurance. Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted in Minas’s favor on Glam’s third and

            fourth causes of action and they will be dismissed.

            Accordingly it is,

                    ORDERED that Minas’s motion for summary judgment is granted and the second third-

            party complaint against it is dismissed; and it is further

             157693/2019 PINZON, LUIS vs. TRISTAR ASSOCIATES, LLC                                          Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 006

                                                               6 of 7
[* 6]
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/17/2024 04:24 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 157693/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 218                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

                    ORDERED that the clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly with costs and

            disbursements to Minas; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining defendants; and

            it is further

                    ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissal and that all future papers

            filed with the court bear the amended caption; and it is further

                    ORDERED that counsel for the moving party shall serve a copy of this order with notice

            of entry upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office, who are directed

            to mark the court’s records to reflect the change in the caption herein

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General

            Clerk’s Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on

            Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-

            Filing” page on the court’s website)].

                     4/17/2024
                       DATE                                                         PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                      X   GRANTED             DENIED       GRANTED IN PART             OTHER

             APPLICATION:                 SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:        INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT       REFERENCE

             157693/2019 PINZON, LUIS vs. TRISTAR ASSOCIATES, LLC                                    Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 006

                                                            7 of 7
[* 7]