Court Opinion

ID: 9956345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 20:12:05.635167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:53.244970
License: Public Domain

Cordova v East Point Bldrs. Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31020(U)
                     March 27, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154834/2022
                  Judge: Lori S. Sattler
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. 154834/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. LORI S. SATTLER                                               PART                              02M
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          154834/2022
             DARWIN CORDOVA,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE         01/25/2024
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.         001
                                                 -v-
             EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP, DAVID HAMAMOTO,
             MARTHA HAMAMOTO, HAMPTONS BUILDING DESIGN,
             INC.,MJS INTERIORS CORP., MARQUEZ                                                        DECISION + ORDER ON
             CONSTRUCTOR CORP. D/B/A MARQUEZ DRYWALL &                                                      MOTION
             TAPING, MARQUEZ DRYWALL INC.,MAC-LAD CORP.,

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

             HAMPTONS BUILDING DESIGN, INC.                                                                    Third-Party
                                                                                                         Index No. 595791/2023
                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             PUCCIO ELECTRIC CONTRACTING, INC.

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 44, 45, 46, 47, 48,
            49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                   .

                      In this Labor Law action, Third-Party Defendant Puccio Electric Contracting Inc.

            (“Puccio”) moves for an Order granting summary judgment dismissing the Third-Party

            Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212. Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Hamptons Building Design

            Inc. (“Hamptons”) partially opposes the motion.

                      This action was commenced after a purported worksite accident in Water Mill, New York

            on March 16, 2022 when Plaintiff injured his leg. At the time of the alleged incident, Hamptons

            had been retained as the general contractor of the project. It subsequently retained Puccio for

             154834/2022 CORDOVA, DARWIN vs. EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP ET AL                                             Page 1 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 154834/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

            electrical contracting work and Plaintiff was an employee of Puccio at the time (NYSCEF Docs.

            48,49).

                      Puccio maintains that the third-party action must be dismissed because Plaintiff did not

            suffer a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Puccio further

            claims that dismissal is appropriate because there was no valid contract between Puccio and

            Hamptons at the time of Plaintiff’s alleged incident. Hamptons concedes that Plaintiff has not

            sustained a grave injury and that Puccio is entitled to dismissal of their common law

            indemnification and contribution claims. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Hamptons’ third and

            fourth causes of action for common law indemnification and contribution on consent.

                      Hamptons opposes dismissal of the remaining causes of action, arguing that dismissal is

            not warranted with respect to its contractual indemnification and contribution claims, as well as

            its cause of action for breach of contract for failing to procure insurance. It annexes a one-page

            document signed by Puccio and Hamptons entitled “SUBCONTRACTOR LUMP SUM

            PARTIAL AFFIDAVIT OF PAYMENT, WAIVER AND RELEASE” (NYSCEF Doc. 49). It

            contends that this agreement indicates that it was for all work through January 10, 2022, and that

            it contains specific language that Puccio “agrees to defend and hold harmless the . . . Contractor

            from and against all liens, claims, court actions, losses, or damages of whatever kind asserted by

            whomever arising out of the work performed” (id.). It further asserts that the agreement “does

            not set forth Puccio’s obligation to provide defense and indemnification ends on 1/10/22”

            (NYSCEF Doc. 60, Affirmation in Opposition).

                      Hamptons additionally claims that summary judgment must be denied because discovery

            has not been completed. It does not, however, assert that there are additional agreements

            between the parties and did not produce one in response to Puccio’s Demand. Lastly, Hamptons

             154834/2022 CORDOVA, DARWIN vs. EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP ET AL                        Page 2 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 154834/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

            asserts that Puccio breached the contract by failing to procure insurance. It notes that Puccio

            obtained insurance but only named them as additional insured.

                   A party seeking summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212(b) “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 Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,

            324 [1986]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion (Winegrad v New

            York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

                   Where the intent of the parties to a contract “can be determined from the face of the

            agreement, interpretation is a matter of law and the case is ripe for summary judgment” (CIT

            Group/Credit Fin. Inc. v Weinstein, 261 AD2d 203, 204 [1st Dept 1999], quoting American

            Express Bank of Uniroyal, Inc., 164 AD2d 275, 277 [1st Dept 1990]). However, where “the

            language of a contract is ambiguous, its construction presents a question of fact which may not

            be resolved by the court on a motion for summary judgment” (NFL Enters. LLC v Comcast

            Cable Communications, LLC, 51 AD3d 52, 61 [1st Dept 2008], quoting Pepco Constr. of N.Y.,

            Inc. v CAN Ins. Co., 15 AD3d 464, 465 [2d Dept 2005]). When interpreting a contract, the court

            should accord words their fair and reasonable meaning with the aim of practically interpreting

            the parties’ expressions such that their reasonable expectations are realized (Dreisinger v

            Teglasi, 130 AD3d 524, 527 [1st Dept 2015], quoting Duane Reade, Inc. v Cardtronics, LP, 54

            AD3d 137, 140 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Strong v Dubin, 75 AD3d 66 [1st Dept 2010]).

                   The Court finds that the agreement is clear on its face as to the issue of duration. It states

            that it is “[e]ffective for all work through: 1/10/22” and specifically states that this is the “End

            Date” for the obligations set forth in the agreement. In addition, where the agreement addresses

            the contractual indemnification and contribution obligations, it states that this is for work

             154834/2022 CORDOVA, DARWIN vs. EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP ET AL                          Page 3 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154834/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

            “arising out of the work performed through the above specified End Date except as follows: NO

            EXCEPTIONS” (NYSCEF Doc. 49). Based on a review of the agreement, its terms are clear

            and unambiguous and support the contention that all of Puccio’s obligations set forth in the

            agreement concluded on January 10, 2022. Accordingly, the Third-Party Complaint is dismissed

            in its entirety.

                    All matters not decided herein are hereby denied.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                     3/27/2024                                                             $SIG$
                       DATE                                                       LORI S. SATTLER, 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

             154834/2022 CORDOVA, DARWIN vs. EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP ET AL                         Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 001

                                                          4 of 4
[* 4]