Court Opinion

ID: 9958688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:04.302444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:37.887708
License: Public Domain

Deas v Turner Constr. Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31132(U)
                      April 5, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 151490/2020
                 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. 151490/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. DAVID B. COHEN                                                PART                              58
                                                                                     Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
                                                                                                    INDEX NO.          151490/2020
             AKHEIM DEAS,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE         10/25/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.       002 003
                                                 - V -

             TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, NEW YORK
                                                                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
             UNIVERSITY
                                                                                                             MOTION
                                                         Defendants.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 45, 46, 47, 48, 49,
            50, 51, 52,53, 54,55, 56,57, 58,59, 60,61, 62,63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
            35, 36, 37,38, 39,40,41,42,43,44, 69, 71, 72, 73
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

                      In this Labor Law personal injury action, defendants move pursuant to CPLR 3212 for an

            order granting them summary judgment on plaintiff's Labor Law§§§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200

            and common-law negligence claims and dismissing the complaint (mot. seq. 002).

                      By notice of motion, plaintiff moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for an order granting him

            summary judgment on his Labor Law§ 240(1) claim against defendants (mot. seq. 003).

                                                              I.         BACKGROUND

                      The following pertinent facts are undisputed:

                      On August 7, 2019, plaintiff was working as a plumber for a subcontrator at a

            construction site in Manhattan, consisting of construction of a new building. The building's

            subcellar was going to be used as a sports area, including a pool. At the time of the accident,

            there was a raised platform in the subcellar, approximately five feet high, under which the

             151490/2020 DEAS, AKHEIM vs. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY                                                   Page 1 of 7
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                                           1 of 7
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 151490/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            plumbers were fixing pipes, called a Cupolex concrete forming system. Eventually, concrete

            would be poured on top of it to create a concrete structure in the subcellar. Defendant New York

            University (NYU) owned the premises at issue, while defendant Turner Construction Company

            was the general contractor.

                   Before the accident, plaintiff had installed pipes under the platform, and he then stood on

            top of the platform, which consisted of hard plastic, to check the pipes to make sure they were

            installed correctly. Workers routinely walked on the platform, which was surrounded by

            concrete level with it. Plaintiff had been told the platform was safe to walk on, and he had

            walked on it many times without incident. On the date of the accident, as plaintiff walked on the

            platform, a portion of it collapsed under him, causing him to fall to the ground.

                                            II.    DEFENDANTS' MOTION

                   A party moving for summary judgment under CPLR 3212 "must make a prima facie

            showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw, tendering sufficient evidence to

            demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,

            324 [1986]). The "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party"

            (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation

            omitted]).

                   Once the moving party has met this prima facie burden, the burden shifts to the non-

            moving party to furnish evidence in admissible form sufficient to raise a material issue of fact

            (Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 324). The moving party's "[f]ailure to make such prima facie showing

            requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" (id.).

             151490/2020 DEAS, AKHEIM vs. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY                              Page 2 of 7
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                          2 of 7
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 151490/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                              A.      Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims

                   Defendants argue that plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims

            must be dismissed against them as it is undisputed that they did not control or supervise the

            means and methods of plaintiff's work. They deny that the Cupolex system was inherently

            dangerous or that anyone had complained about it to them before plaintiff's accident. Moreover,

            they assert, the system was integral to the work being performed as it would be used to create a

            concrete base in the subcellar (NYSCE 65).

                   Plaintiff contends that his accident arose from a dangerous condition on the property,

            specifically, "permitting Plaintiff and other workers to work on the Cupolex system while being

            aware that the system was not designed to support the weight of a worker" (NYSCEF 66).

                   "Section 200 of the Labor Law is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon

            an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work

            (Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993] [internal quotation

            marks and citations omitted]). Claims under the statute and the common-law arise in two ways,

            "those arising from an alleged defect or dangerous condition existing on the premises and those

            arising from the manner in which the work was performed. Where an existing defect or

            dangerous condition caused the injury, liability attaches if the owner or general contractor

            created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. Where the injury was caused by

            the manner and means of the work, including the equipment used, the owner or general

            contractor is liable if it actually exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work"

            (Cappabianca v Skanska USA Bldg. Inc., 99 AD3d 139, 143-144 [1st Dept 2012] [internal

            quotation marks and citations omitted]).

             151490/2020 DEAS, AKHEIM vs. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY                             Page 3 of 7
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                          3 of 7
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 151490/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                   As characterized by plaintiff here, the dangerous condition was not the Cupolex system in

            and of itself, but that defendants permitted workers to walk and work on top of the system

            despite the possibility of it collapsing, which implicates the way that the work was being

            performed and thereby the means and methods of the work; it does not implicate a defective or

            dangerous condition at the site, unrelated to the work at issue (see Buckley v Columbia Grammar

            and Prep., 44 AD3d 263,273 [1st Dept 2007] ["where an alleged defect or dangerous condition

            arises from a subcontractor's methods over which the defendant exercises no supervisory

            control, liability will not attach under either the common law or section 200"], lv denied I 0

            NY3d 710 [2008]; see also Villanueva v 114 5th Ave. Assocs. LLC, 162 AD3d 404 [1st Dept

            2018] [where defect is not inherent but is created by work being performed, claim involves

            means and methods and not dangerous condition existing on premises; there was no defect

            inherent in elevator and plaintiff argued that interior of elevator was insufficient to carry heavy

            beams, which went to means and methods of work being performed]).

                   As plaintiff does not dispute that defendants did not supervise or control the means and

            methods of his work, his Labor Law§ 200 and common-law negligence claims are dismissed

            (see Lindemann v VNO 100 W 33rd St. LLC, 223 AD3d 434 [1st Dept 2024] [as raised flooring

            and protruding metal pedestal were not defects inherent in property but were created by

            subcontractor's ongoing work and how it was performed, defendants not liable as they did not

            supervise and control work]).

                                             B.     Labor Law § 240( 1) claim

                   "Labor Law§ 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty and absolute liability upon owners

            and contractors for failing to provide safety devices necessary for workers subjected to elevation-

            related risks in circumstances specified by the statute" (Soto v J Crew Inc., 21 NY3d 562, 566

             151490/2020 DEAS, AKHEIM vs. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY                              Page 4 of 7
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                           4 of 7
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 151490/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            [2013] [citations omitted]; see Healy v EST Downtown, LLC, 38 NY3d 998, 999 [2022]). A

            plaintiff seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability "must establish that the statute was

            violated and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injury" (Barreto v Metropolitan

            Transp. Auth., 25 NY3d 426,433 [2015]; see Villanueva v 114 Fifth Ave. Assoc. LLC, 162 AD3d

            404, 405 [1st Dept 2018]).

                   Defendants contend that plaintiff's accident is not covered by Labor Law§ 240(1) as he

            only fell approximately 3.5 feet to the ground, which is an insufficient height elevation

            differential. Alternatively, they argue that the accident was caused solely by plaintiff's decision

            to walk on the system (NYSCEF 65).

                   Plaintiff claims that Labor Law§ 240(1) was violated as he fell from an elevated

            platform, which collapsed, and that he was not provided with safety equipment to prevent the

            fall. He denies that there is a minimum height differential applied by the courts in assessing an

            elevation-risk related violation, or that he was the sole proximate cause of the accident, even if

            he had been forbidden from walking on top of the system, which he also denies (NYSCEF 66).

                   Contrary to defendants' contention, there is no de minimis elevation-related risk, and

            plaintiff's fall of approximately 3. 5 feet from the top of the system to the ground, resulting from

            the system's partial collapse and defendants' failure to provide plaintiff with any safety

            equipment to protect him against the risk of falling, constitutes a violation of Labor Law §

            240(1) (see Hoyos v NY-1095 Ave. of the Am., LLC, 156 AD3d 491 [1st Dept 2017] [plaintiff's

            fall from dock that was elevated three to four feet off ground could not be described as "fall from

            a de minimis height"]; Megna v Tishman Constr. Corp. of Manhattan, 306 AD2d 163 [1st Dept

            2003] [as plaintiff fell from temporary staircase when it collapsed under his weight and he fell to

            ground, short distance of fall, between 16 inches and two feet, was irrelevant]; Siago v Garbade

             151490/2020 DEAS, AKHEIM vs. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY                              Page 5 of 7
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                          5 of 7
[* 5]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 151490/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            Constr. Co., 262 AD2d 945 [4th Dept 1999] [statute violated as defective plank caused plaintiff

            to lose balance and fall approximately 18 inches to top of scaffold; determination as to whether

            violation occurs does not depend on distance worker falls]).

                   Defendants also do not demonstrate that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his

            accident, as there is no evidence that he or others were forbidden from walking on top of the

            system, and plaintiff submits evidence that he, as well as other workers, were directed to do so

            and did so frequently and openly (see e.g., Martinez v Kingston 541, LLC, 210 AD3d 556 [1st

            Dept 2022] [as plaintiff was following supervisor's direction to walk on joints, he could not be

            sole proximate cause of his injuries]).

                   Defendants thus fail to show that they are entitled to dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law §

            240( 1) claim.

                                             C.       Labor Law § 241 ( 6) claim

                   Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal of this claim (NYSCEF 66, fn. 1), and it is dismissed.

                                             III.     PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

                   For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff has demonstrated his entitlement to partial

            summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim (see Megna, 306 AD2d at 164 [proof that

            plaintiff fell when staircase collapsed established prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240( 1)]).

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

                   ORDEERED, that defendants' motion for summary judgment (mot. seq. 002) is granted

            to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law§§ 241(6) and 200 and common-law negligence

            claims, and denied as to plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, and those dismissed claims are

            severed and dismissed, and the clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; it is further

             151490/2020 DEAS, AKHEIM vs. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY                             Page 6 of 7
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                           6 of 7
[* 6]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 151490/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 77                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                    ORDERED, that plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on liability on his

            Labor Law § 240(1) claim against defendants (mot. seq. 003) is granted; and it is further

                    ORDERED, that the parties appear for a settlement/trial scheduling conference on August

            7, 2024 at 9:30 am, at 71 Thomas Street, Room 305, New York, New York.

                                                                          maaM(l,._.
                     4/5/2024
                      DATE                                                      DAVID B. COHEN, 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

             151490/2020 DEAS, AKHEIM vs. TURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY                             Page 7 of 7
             Motion No. 002 003

                                                           7 of 7
[* 7]