Court Opinion

ID: 9962515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:09:38.659878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.733735
License: Public Domain

Juarez v Levitt
               2024 NY Slip Op 31362(U)
                     April 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154268/2020
                 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. 154268/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                                PART   58
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.         154268/2020
             HUGO SEBASTIAN JUAREZ,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.       003
                                                         Plaintiff,

                                                 -v-
             JEFFREY A. LEVITT, AS TRUSTEE OF RHFT                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             INVESTMENT TRUST, JACQUES GRANGE, INC., and                                                    MOTION
             EUROSTRUCT, INC.,

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 63, 64, 65, 66, 67,
            68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                 .

                      In this Labor Law action, defendant Jacques Grange, Inc. (JGI) moves, pursuant to CPLR

            3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it.

                                                     I. Factual and Procedural Background

                      This case arises from an incident on March 12, 2020, in which plaintiff was allegedly

            injured after falling off of a ladder while working at a building located at 33 West 12th Street in

            Manhattan (the premises) (NYSCEF Doc No. 65). Plaintiff commenced this action against

            defendants alleging claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200,

            240(1), and 241(6) (Doc No. 65). JGI joined issue by its answer dated February 3, 2022, denying

            all substantive allegations of wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses (Doc No. 66).

            JGI now moves for summary dismissal of the complaint as against it (Doc No. 63), which plaintiff

            opposes (Doc No. 82).

             154268/2020 JUAREZ, HUGO SEBASTIAN vs. JEFFREY A. LEVITT, AS                                             Page 1 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                                           1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                                              INDEX NO. 154268/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88                                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            A. Deposition Testimony of Plaintiff (Doc Nos. 70-72)

                   At his deposition, plaintiff testified that, on the day of the incident, he was employed by

            nonparty Atelier Premiere and working on the premises. He and his foreman, another Atelier

            Premiere employee, were responsible for applying a special type of plaster to the interior of the

            front entrance foyer on the first floor of the premises. Plaintiff was given instructions by his

            foreman, who was the only person from whom he received instructions. He was not given any

            safety equipment and was not wearing any on that day. The only items he provided himself were

            his tools; Atelier Premiere provided him with a 6-foot, A-frame ladder to reach the ceiling of the

            foyer. He was unaware of any prior complaints regarding the ladder. He also never asked for

            scaffolding, nor was any such scaffolding available to use. When asked about JGI, he stated he

            had never heard of them.

                   On the date of the incident, plaintiff entered the premises, retrieved the ladder from the

            basement, and set it up in the foyer. He ascended the ladder and began to apply tape to the ceiling

            with both hands. The ladder suddenly turned and fell to the ground, causing him to fall and land

            on top of it. Shortly after the incident, he noticed one of the ladder’s legs had become bent. He

            then left the premises and transported himself to the hospital.

            B. Deposition Testimony of Defendant Jeffrey A. Levitt (Doc No. 73)1

                   Defendant Levitt testified that he was an attorney for a family who resided at the premises

            (the occupants). In 2014, defendant RHFT Investment Trust, of which he was the sole trustee,

            purchased the premises on behalf of the occupants. However, he was unaware of plaintiff’s

            accident and any related construction project.

                   1
                       In October 2023, plaintiff discontinued this action as against Levitt (Doc No. 85).
             154268/2020 JUAREZ, HUGO SEBASTIAN vs. JEFFREY A. LEVITT, AS                                     Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                                  2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 154268/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            C. Deposition Testimony of JGI (Doc No. 75)

                    A project manager for JGI testified that it was an interior designer/decorator that only

            provided the occupants with “drawings, the layout for the furniture, the selection of fabrics, the

            selection of wall finishes, paint samples,” and other items related to “decoration[s].” It did not

            hire any contractors for the project and never coordinated any work done at the premises, it only

            helped the occupants identify contractors to hire.            Although JGI recommended a general

            contractor, the occupants hired defendant Eurostruct, Inc. directly instead. Atelier Premiere was

            hired to handle painting and plastering, but JGI never instructed Atelier Premiere or its employees

            on how to perform their work. JGI also did not have the authority to stop workers on the project,

            it could only notify the requisite managers.

            D. Deposition Testimony of Nonparty RHFT Investment Trust (Doc No. 74)

                    A witness for nonparty RHFT Investment Trust (RHFT) confirmed Levitt’s testimony that

            the trust was setup in connection with the purchase of the premises. RHFT owned the premises,

            which contained a residential space and a commercial space with different street addresses, and

            the witness, one of the occupants, resided there with his family. He was generally aware of the

            construction project occurring, but he was not involved in any of the negotiations and was

            unfamiliar with many of the project’s details.

                    He engaged with JGI to “design and decorate” the premises, which “evolved and

            expanded” over time to cover “tile work, . . . wall coverings, . . . carpeting, . . . furniture, . . . [and]

            lighting.” JGI “designed and oversaw” everything that was done and was in charge of the work

            being performed. It was responsible for selecting and approving contractors related to the

            decoration work and decided to engage Atelier Premiere to handle the painting and plastering. It

            also had the authority to stop “improper” work, although he did not know whether it could stop

             154268/2020 JUAREZ, HUGO SEBASTIAN vs. JEFFREY A. LEVITT, AS                                Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                             3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 154268/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            unsafe work. However, the witness also stated that other work was taking place at the premises at

            the same time as JGI’s work, and JGI was not responsible for such work.

            E. Contract Between RHFT and JGI (Doc No. 77)

                   Pursuant to the contract, the scope of work to be performed by JGI included, among other

            things, providing the overall “scheme and design” of the project, drawings of all designs, and

            “samples of all decoration materials chosen.” The contract contained several provisions related to

            contractors. Contractors performing structural work, like demolition or masonry, would be

            selected by JGI and approved by RHFT, with JGI “collaborat[ing] with any existing contractors

            performing such work.” Contractors performing decorative or specialty work, like “specialty

            decorative plaster” or “specialty decorative painting,” would also be chosen by JGI and approved

            by RHFT, but would be paid by RHFT directly. JGI was tasked with “control[ling] the progress

            of the works” for which it was responsible and “supervis[ing] the execution and the schedule “of

            contractors performing any decorative or specialty work.”

                                            II. Legal Analysis and Conclusions

            A. Plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6) Claims

                   JGI contends that it is entitled to dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law claims because it has

            made a prima facie showing that it was not an agent of the owner or contractor for purposes of the

            statute. Plaintiff maintains in opposition that even if JGI made a prima facie showing, questions

            of fact exist regarding whether JGI was a statutory agent based on the contract it entered into with

            RHFT for performing the work.

                   It is well established that owners, contractors, and their agents are subjected to the various

            requirements of Labor Law. A defendant is deemed a statutory agent of the owner or contractor

            when it “has supervisory control and authority over the work being done when the plaintiff is

             154268/2020 JUAREZ, HUGO SEBASTIAN vs. JEFFREY A. LEVITT, AS                         Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 154268/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            injured” (Walls v Turner Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 861, 864 [2005]; see Russin v Louis N. Picciano &

            Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317-318 [1981]). “The determinative factor is whether the defendant had the

            right to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right” (Santos v

            Condo 124 LLC, 161 AD3d 650, 653 [1st Dept 2018] [citations omitted]).

                   JGI has made a prima facie showing that it lacked the requisite control and authority, based

            on the testimony from its project manager that it never directed Atelier Premiere on how to perform

            the plastering work and plaintiff’s testimony that he was entirely unfamiliar with JGI and only

            received instructions from his Atelier Premiere coworker (see Moore v URS Corp., 209 AD3d 438,

            439 [1st Dept 2022]).

                   Plaintiff fails to satisfy its shifted burden to demonstrate that questions of fact exist.

            Although there is testimony that JGI “oversaw” and was “in charge of” plaintiff’s plastering work,

            and the contract between RHFT and JGI provided that JGI would “control” and “supervise”

            contractors performing plastering work, there is no evidence that JGI was responsible for either

            the specific manner in which plaintiff performed his work or whether such work was performed

            safely. JGI’s responsibilities are best described as “general supervisory responsibilities,” which

            are insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law (see Diaz v P&K Contr., Inc., 224 AD3d 405,

            406 [1st Dept 2024]; Hughes v Tishman Constr. Corp., 40 AD3d 305, 307 [1st Dept 2007]).

            Therefore, JGI was not a statutory agent for Labor Law purposes, and plaintiff’s Labor Law claims

            are dismissed (see Diaz, 224 AD3d at 406 [granting defendant’s motion for summary dismissal of

            plaintiff’s Labor Law claims because defendant was not statutory agent]; cf. Herrera v Kent Ave.

            Prop. III LLC, 203 AD3d 512, 513 [1st Dept 2022] [finding defendant was statutory agent, in part,

            because it was responsible for “provid[ing] barriers, flagmen, and also post[ing] danger signs”];

            Moore, 209 AD3d at 439 [finding questions of fact existed regarding authority to control work

             154268/2020 JUAREZ, HUGO SEBASTIAN vs. JEFFREY A. LEVITT, AS                        Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154268/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

            because of testimonial and documentary evidence pertaining to control of “safety issues associated

            with plaintiff’s work”]).

            B. Plaintiff’s Common Law Negligence Claims

                      Plaintiff’s common-law negligence claims are dismissed for the same reasons as his Labor

            Law claims. Common-law negligence claims like the ones at issue here “either arise from an

            alleged defect or dangerous condition existing on the premises or from the manner in which the

            work was performed” (Villanueva v 114 Fifth Ave. Assoc. LLC, 162 AD3d 404, 406 [1st Dept

            2018]). When, like here, the claim arose from the manner in which plaintiff performed his work,

            liability may only be imposed if a defendant had sufficient control over the means and methods of

            the work (Hughes, 40 AD3d at 309).

                      As stated above, JGI’s responsibilities amounted to general supervisory responsibilities,

            not control over the means and methods of plaintiff’s work plastering the interior of the foyer.

            Thus, JGI is entitled to summary dismissal of plaintiff’s common-law negligence claims against it

            (see Villanueva, 162 AD3d at 407 [granting summary dismissal of common-law negligence claims

            against defendant because it lacked sufficient control over “manner and means” of plaintiff’s

            work]; Hughes, 40 AD3d at 309 [granting summary dismissal of common-law negligence claims

            because defendant established that it “only exercised general supervisory powers” and plaintiff

            failed to demonstrate questions of fact existed]).

                      Accordingly, it is hereby:

                      ORDERED that the motion by defendant Jacques Grange, Inc. for summary judgment

            dismissing the complaint as against it is granted and the complaint is dismissed against it; and it is

            further

             154268/2020 JUAREZ, HUGO SEBASTIAN vs. JEFFREY A. LEVITT, AS                          Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 154268/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                    ORDERED that the said claims against defendant Jacques Grange, Inc. are severed and the

            balance of the action shall continue; and it is further

                    ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendant Jacques

            Grange, Inc. dismissing the claims against it in this action, together with costs and disbursements

            to be taxed by the Clerk upon submission of an appropriate bill of costs.

                    4/19/2024
                      DATE                                                          DAVID B. COHEN, 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

             154268/2020 JUAREZ, HUGO SEBASTIAN vs. JEFFREY A. LEVITT, AS                             Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 003

                                                           7 of 7
[* 7]