Court Opinion

ID: 9959929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:12:46.30131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.942730
License: Public Domain

Brito v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31192(U)
                      April 5, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 162008/2018
                  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. 162008/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 02M
            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
             RAFAEL BRITO,                                                                         INDEX NO.         162008/2018

                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                   MOTION DATE        06/16/2023
                                                -v-
                                                                                                   MOTION SEQ. NO.        003
             CITY OF NEW YORK, CITY OF NEW YORK
             DEPARTMENT OF SMALL BUSINESS SERVICES,
             SOUTH STREET SEAPORT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
             SEAPORT MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,                                                DECISION + ORDER ON
             LLC,THE HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION, GTL                                                       MOTION
             CONSTRUCTION, LLC,

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

             GTL CONSTRUCTION, LLC                                                                             Third-Party
                                                          Plaintiff,                                     Index No. 595572/2019

                                                 -against-

             JLM DECORATING, INC.

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

            HON. LORI S. SATTLER:

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 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, 110,
            111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131,
            132, 133
            were read on this motion to/for                              JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                            .

                      Plaintiff Rafael Brito (“Plaintiff”) moves in this Labor Law action for summary judgment

            as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. Defendants and third-party defendant

            JLM Decorating, Inc. (“JLM”) oppose the motion.

                      Plaintiff was employed by JLM as a painter. JLM had been subcontracted by defendant

            GTL Construction, LLC (“GTL”), the general contractor, to provide painting services at a

            construction project located at 89 South Street, Pier 17 in Manhattan. On the night of July 31,
             162008/2018 BRITO, RAFAEL vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                                            Page 1 of 5
             Motion No. 003

                                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 162008/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            2018, Plaintiff was painting the walls and ceiling of a room on the third floor after working a

            double shift that began at 7:00 a.m. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 111, Plaintiff EBT at 83). Plaintiff was

            working alone in the room and was using an A-Frame ladder to reach the ceiling to paint it. As

            Plaintiff was descending from the ladder after painting around a light fixture at approximately

            11:00 p.m., Plaintiff felt the ladder move and it began to fall to the right (id. at 90, 118-121).

            Plaintiff fell onto the ground with the ladder and sustained injuries.

                   The A-frame ladder had been set up in the room before Plaintiff began his work. At the

            time of his accident Plaintiff was working under the direction of JLM’s foreman, Israel Martinez,

            who testified that he had set up the ladder from which Plaintiff later fell (NYSCEF Doc. No. 96,

            Martinez EBT at 56). Plaintiff testified that he had not used scaffolding during his work at the

            job site and that he had not seen scaffolding on the third floor prior to his accident (Plaintiff EBT

            at 77, 101).

                    Plaintiff commenced this action on December 21, 2018, asserting causes of action under

            Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and in negligence. He now moves for summary judgment

            on his § 240(1) cause of action.

                   On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party “must make a prima facie showing

            of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any

            material issues of fact from the case” (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851,

            853 [1985], citing Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). “Failure to make

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

            (Winegrad, 64 NY2d at 853). Should the movant make its prima facie showing, the burden

            shifts to the opposing party, who must then produce admissible evidentiary proof to establish that

            material issues of fact exist (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). “However,

             162008/2018 BRITO, RAFAEL vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                          Page 2 of 5
             Motion No. 003

                                                              2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 162008/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            bald, conclusory assertions or speculation and ‘[a] shadowy semblance of an issue’ are

            insufficient to defeat summary judgment” (Stonehill Capital Mgt. LLC v Bank of the W., 28

            NY3d 439, 448 [2016], quoting S.J. Capelin Assoc. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338, 341

            [1974]).

                   Labor Law § 240(1) “places a nondelegable duty on owners, contractors, and their agents

            to furnish safety devices giving construction workers adequate protection from elevation-related

            risks” (Hill v City of New York, 140 AD3d 568, 569 [1st Dept 2016]). “The single decisive

            question is whether plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide

            adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential”

            (Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 603 [2009]).

                   A defendant’s failure to properly secure a ladder to “ensure that it remain[s] steady and

            erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240(1)” (Montalvo v J. Petorcelli

            Constr., Inc., 8 AD3d 173, 174 [1st Dept 2004], quoting Kijak v 330 Madison Ave. Corp., 251

            AD2d 152, 153 [1st Dept 1998]). A plaintiff does not need to “prove that the ladder was

            defective to make a prima facie showing” (Rivera v Suydam 379 LLC, 216 AD3d 495, 495-496

            [1st Dept 2023], citing Estrella v GIT Indus., Inc., 105 AD3d 555 [1st Dept 2013]). Summary

            judgment is properly granted where plaintiff establishes through testimony that an injury

            occurred due to an unsecured ladder that suddenly moved (Fanning v Rockefeller Univ., 106

            AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2013]). “The fact that plaintiff was the only witness to his accident does not

            preclude summary judgment in his favor” where “nothing in the record controverts his account

            of the accident or calls his credibility into question” (Rroku v West Rac Contr. Corp., 164 AD3d

            1176, 1177 [1st Dept 2018]).

             162008/2018 BRITO, RAFAEL vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                       Page 3 of 5
             Motion No. 003

                                                              3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 162008/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

                   Plaintiff sets forth a prima facie case in support of summary judgment on his Labor Law

            § 240(1) claim. It is undisputed that Plaintiff was working on a ladder immediately before the

            accident and his testimony states that that he sustained injuries from falling off a ladder that

            suddenly moved under him is uncontroverted (cf. Hernandez v Bethel United Methodist Church

            of N.Y., 49 AD3d 251 [1st Dept 2008]).

                    Defendants and third-party defendant JLM fail to create an issue of material fact as to the

            cause of Plaintiff’s accident and resulting injuries. The contention that Plaintiff was the sole

            proximate cause of his accident is without merit. Defendants and JLM fail to raise a triable issue

            of fact as to whether, inter alia, “adequate safety devices were available, that the plaintiff knew

            that they were available and was expected to use them, and that the plaintiff unreasonably chose

            not to do so” (see Quinones v Olmstead Properties, Inc., 133 AD3d 87, 89 [1st Dept 2015],

            quoting Nacewicz v Roman Catholic Church of the Holy Cross, 105 AD3d 402, 402-403 [1st

            Dept 2013]). Plaintiff testified that he had not seen scaffolding on the third floor of before his

            accident (Plaintiff EBT at 101). Although GLM’s supervisor on the site, Brian Lindsey, testified

            that painters were supposed to use baker scaffolds when painting the ceilings (NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 100, Lindsey aff at 158), there is no testimony from Plaintiff, his coworkers, or foreman that

            he was instructed to use a scaffold prior to his accident.

                   The argument that Plaintiff’s hospital record contradicts his account of how he fell is also

            without merit, as the purported versions of the accident described in medical records are

            inadmissible hearsay (Mosqueda v Ariston Dev. Group, 155 AD3d 504 [1st Dept 2017).

            Defendants’ reliance on an unsworn, uncertified expert report to assert that the ladder from

            which Plaintiff fell was not defective is similarly without merit (see Spierer v Bloomingdale’s,

             162008/2018 BRITO, RAFAEL vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                        Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 003

                                                              4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 162008/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 134                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            43 AD3d 664, 666 [1st Dept 2007] [unsworn expert report not admissible, insufficient to oppose

            summary judgment]).

                    All other relief sought and not addressed herein is denied.

                    Accordingly, it is hereby:

                    ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the cause of action for

            liability under Section 240(1) of the Labor Law as against defendants is granted.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                     4/5/2024                                                                $SIG$
                      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

             162008/2018 BRITO, RAFAEL vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                           Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 003

                                                              5 of 5
[* 5]