Court Opinion

ID: 9965589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 20:08:35.551051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:14.732603
License: Public Domain

Peralta v Hunter Roberts Constr. Group LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31515(U)
                     April 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 159317/2018
                 Judge: Suzanne Adams
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. 159317/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

                             SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                       NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:         HON. SUZANNE ADAMS                                    PART                                 39M
                                                                     Justice
           ----------------------------- ---------X                              INDEX NO.              159317/2018
             JOSE PERALTA,
                                                                                 MOTION DATE                 N/A
                                               Plaintiff,
                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.             002
                                        -v-
             HUNTER ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC,RXR                              DECISION + ORDER ON
             GARVIES P1 BUILDING H OWNER LLC,
                                                                                           MOTION
                                               Defendant.
                                                     --------------------X

             HUNTER ROBERTS CONSTRUCTION GROUP LLC, RXR                                        Third-Party
             GARVIES P1 BUILDING H OWNER LLC                                             Index No. 595238/2019

                                                Plaintiff,

                                         -against-

             ALL TECH INC. D/B/A GOLDEN EAGLE FRAMING LLC, MB
             HOME REMODELING LLC, GOLDEN EAGLE FRAMING,
             LLC., GOLDEN CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT, LLC

                                                Defendant.
             --------------------         --------------- ------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 68, 69, 70, 71, 72,
            73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,
            100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
            were read on this motion to/for                                  JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                   Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendants/third-party plaintiffs' motion

           is granted in part and denied in part, and plaintiffs cross-motion is denied. This personal injury

           action arises out of an incident that occurred on August 30, 2018, at the site of a construction

           project at Garvies Point Road in Glen Cove, New York, owned by defendant/third-party plaintiff

           RXR Garvies Pl Building H Owner LLC (the "Owner"). The Owner retained defendant/third-

           party plaintiff Hunter Roberts Construction Group LLC (the "CM") to serve as construction
             159317/2018 PERALTA, JOSE C. vs. RXR REALTY LLC                                             Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 002

[* 1]                                                          1 of 4
                                                                                                                             I
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 159317/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024
                                                                                                                     i
                                                                                                                    'I

           manager for the project, and the CM retained third-party defendant Golden Eagle Framing LLC

           ("Golden Eagle") to perform certain work necessary for the construction of timber framing for the

           project. The subcontract between the CM and Golden Eagle required Golden Eagle to, inter alia,

           procure certain insurance policies and name both the Owner and the CM as additional insureds.

           Golden Eagle subcontracted a certain portion of its work on the project to third-party defendant

           MB Home Remodeling, LLC ("MB"), who was plaintiffs employer. On the date in question,

           plaintiff alleges he was at the work site installing trusses from a defective temporary scaffold which

           collapsed and caused him to fall to the ground, sustaining personal injuries.

                  Plaintiff commenced this action in October 2018, asserting, in sum, common-law

           negligence claims as well as claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1 ), and 241 (6).

           Defendants/third-party plaintiffs now move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment

           dismissing plaintiffs complaint and granting their claims for contractual indemnity over and

           against third-party defendants Golden Eagle and MB. Golden Eagle and MB partially oppose the

           motion inasmuch as it pertains to summary judgment as against them. Plaintiff opposes the motion

           and cross-moves for summary judgment on the issue ofliability. Defendants/third-party plaintiffs

           oppose the cross-motion.

                  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." Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 (1986)

           (citing Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 N.Y.2d 851 (1985)); see also

           Winegrad, 64 N.Y.2d at 853. The party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to

           all reasonable inferences most favorable to it, and summary judgment will only be granted if there

           are no genuine, triable issues of fact.   Assaf v. Ropog Cab Corp., 153 A.D.2d 520, 521-22 (1s t

            159317/2018 PERALTA, JOSE C. vs. RXR REALTY LLC                                        Page 2 of 4
            Motion No. 002

[* 2]                                                         2 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 159317/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

           Dep't 1989). Further, New York Labor Law§ 200 codifies the common law duty of owners or

           general contractors to provide a safe construction site workplace, with the "implicit precondition

           to this duty ... [being] that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control

           the activity bringing about the injury .... " Russin v. Louis N Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311,

           316-17 ( 1981 ). Labor Law § 240 imposes liability only upon an owner or general contractor, or a

           third party who has been delegated the duties outlined in the statute and thus obtains the authority

           to supervise and control the work and becomes a statutory "agent" of the owner or contractor.

           Russin, 54 N. Y.2d at 317-18.

                   As an initial matter, plaintiff does not oppose that portion of the motion seeking dismissal

           of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, thus said claim is dismissed. However, the record before the

           court precludes the granting of summary judgment to either the movants or the cross-movant on

           the§§ 200 and 240(1) claims, as the parties present conflicting evidence which raises significant

           questions of fact. For example, although its contract provided that Golden Eagle was solely               1
                                                                                                                         1

           responsible for supplying and constructing the scaffolding at issue, plaintiff testified that the CM

           was involved in discussions regarding the installation and use of scaffolding and approved a plan

           on how to build them. The Owner and CM assert that plaintiff improperly constructed the disputed

           temporary scaffolding, but plaintiff maintains that it is undisputed that no one with personal

           knowledge has testified to that effect. Such factual issues are properly determined by a trier of

           fact.

                   With respect to the defendants/third-party plaintiffs' contractual indemnity claims (as per

           the Notice of Motion; the supporting papers also refer to common law indemnification), same are

           barred by the anti-subrogation rule. See Washington v. New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 215

           A.D.2d 297, 298-99 (1 st Dep't 1995). Further, any award of conditional indemnification against

            159317/2018 PERAL TA, JOSE C. vs. RXR REAL TY LLC                                      Page 3 of 4
            Motion No. 002

                                                                3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 159317/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 111                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/29/2024

           an excess carrier is premature at this stage of the litigation, where there has yet to be an ultimate

           settlement or judgment. Oprea v. New York City Haus. Auth., 239 A.D.2d 119, 120 (1 st Dep't

           1997).

                    Accordingly, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that defendants/third-party plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent that any

           claims under Labor Law § 241 ( 6) are dismissed, and is otherwise denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED that plaintiffs cross-motion is denied.

                    This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

                    04/29/2024
                      DATE                                                          SUZANNE ADAMS, 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         II

            159317/2018 PERALTA, JOSE C. vs. RXR REALTY LLC                                           Page 4 of 4
            Motion No. 002

[* 4]                                                         4 of 4