Court Opinion

ID: 9929179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:08:06.038631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:05:28.137463
License: Public Domain

Cerros v New York City Tr. Auth.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30319(U)
                    January 29, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 153784/2021
                 Judge: Mary V. Rosado
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.
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 05:01 PM                                                                      INDEX NO. 153784/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

                                  SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                                                !N'E W YORK COUNTY

            PRESENT:            'HON .. MARY V. ROSADO                                           PART                                    33M
                                                                       Justice
            - - - - ------- ------------------------ ------------------.. ---X                   INDEX NO.              153784/2021
             MAURICIO CERROS, ENMA CERROS,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE             11 /'01 /2 023
                                                        Pl aintiff,
                                                                                                 MOTION S!::Q, NO.            -'-
                                                                                                                               0~ 03"------
                                               - v-
             NEW YORK CITY TRANS IT AUTHORI TY,
             METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, THE
             CffY OF NEW YORK, TUL LY CONSTR UCTI ON CO.                                           DECISIONi + ORDER ON
             INC.,WALSH CONSTRU CTION COMPANY II,                                                         MOTION
             LlC,FEILDMAN LUMBER-US lBM, LILC,

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

             NEW YOR K cnY TRANSIT AUTHORIT Y, METROPOLI TAN                                                    Third-Pa rty
             TRANSPORTATION AUTHORlTY, THE CITY OF NEW YORK                                             Iri dex No. 5 95 079/202 3

                                                         Plaintiff,

                                                -against-

             'FELDMAN LUMBE R-US LBM , LLC

                                                         Defendant.
             H•----- -. ------------ -·----- ----------------         -~ ----------- -~--• . X

            The following e-filed documents , listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) S-5, 86, 87, 88, 89                           1,

            90, 91 , 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 101, 02 , 103, 107, 108, 109, 110, 12, 1 3, 114, 11S
            were rea d ori this motion to/for                                            AMEND CAPTIONIP LEADIJNGS

                      Upon the: fc.>regoing documen ts Plaintiffs Mauricio Cerros ("Mauricio';) and Fnma Cerros'

            (''Plaintiffa") motion for an Order granting Plaintiffs ' motion for leave to fi le and s,erve a first

            amended complaint is granted.

                I.         Ba.ckground and Procedural History

                       laiJ1li ff :tv1aurfoio alleges that while •e mployed b ' \Va.lsh Construction Company 11, LLC

            (" \Vals.h '), he ,vas performing v,,:ork on the New York City T ·ansit Authority/J\,fotropolitan

            Transportation Autho ri ty Flood 1itigation and Resil"ency Projc,ct (the ·'Train Yard ') \vhen, "after

             153784/2021 CERROS, MAURICIO vs. NEW YORK. CITY "l"RANSIIT                                                   Page 1 o,f 6
             Motion 'No. 003

[* 1]                                                                      1 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 05:01 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 153784/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

            removing s raps from a stack o f lumber that was improperly pbced and had not been properly

            seemed the stack of lumber collapsed a.nd fell down onto Plaintiff, causing him serious physical

            injuries" {N YSCEP Doc .. 1 al~ 5).

                   Plaintiffs commenced the instant action against Defendants New York City Transit

            Authority ("NYCTA"), Melropolitan T ransportation Authority (''MTA'')~ The City of Nt:\ York

            ''TCNY''), Tully Constmction Co. lnc. ('Tully"}, and \Valsh Constmction Company 11, LLC

            (' Walsh") by filing and serving a Summons and Complaint dated April 19, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc.

            88). issue was j oined by the service of an Ans\ver by Defendants     YCTA~MI A and TCN Y dated

            Ju 1t: 4, 2021. (NY "'CEF Doc. 99). In lieu of answ,eri ng, Defendants TuUy an d Walsh filed a mo lion

            to djsmiss on June ] 5 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. 9). Plairrtjffs ' action against TuUy and Walsh ,1>,•as

            later discontinued without prej udice pursuant to a Stipulation of Discontinuance dated September

            20, 2021 (NYSCEF Doc. 90).

                   On January 26, 2023, Defendants NYCT · , 1TA and 'I C Y (the 'Third- Party Plaintiffs")

            commenced a th ird-party action against Fe ldman Lumber~US L RM , LLC ( 'Fel dman") (N YSCEF

            Doc. 37). F ~1dman is a lumber yard in tJ1e City     or Nc\v York that pr,ovi des materials to various
            individuals and entities throughout the City of Ne,v York and, in this case, prov1ded materials to

            Wal8h at the rain Yard (NY SCEF Doc . l 07 al I 3 ).

                   Subsequently. P laintiffs commenced a separate action against ·eldman under lndex No.

            I 50588/2023 (the ' Separate Action') by filing and s rving a Stunmon::; and Vcri.fied Complaint

            dated Jan uary l 9, 2023 (N -SCEF Doc. 89). Issue vvas j oined by Feldma 1 in the Separate Action

            by servi ce or an Answer date.cl February 27: 2023 (NYSCEF Doc. 102). hereafter, the Separate

            Action was consolidated into this ac t.ion by Decision and O ·J.er dated June 1, 2023 {NYSCEF Doc.

            73).

             1.53184/202:1, CERROS, MAURICIO vs. NEW YORK CITY lRANSff                              Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 003

[* 2]                                                       2 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 05:01 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 153784/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

                     Plaintiffs commenced a th1rd action (the "Third Action") by Sununons and Complaint

            dated October 30, 2023 (Exhi bit B to NY SCEF Doc. 98), asserting claims; inter alia, against the

            po ssible manufacturers and dist1'ibutors of the subject draft oflumber, sounding in strict products

            liability, breach ohvarranty and negligence (NYSCEF · )oc. 86 at ii 15). Plaintiffs intend lo move

            to conso lida te the Third Action vviU1 lhc instant action {NYSC F Doc. 86 at '      3).

                     On November 1, 2023; Piaintiffs made the instant motion C1ot Seq. 3) (N'YSCEF Doc.

            85 ) fm an Order granting Plain Li ffs leave to file an d serve a Firsl Am ended Co nplaint (N YSCEF

            Doc. 98) adding claims against Fddman for strict products liability and breach ofwarranly, as well

            as an additional claim of negligence againsl all defendants .. Feldman filed an Affim1ation in

            Op[ osition to Plainti.ffs' motion dated November 22, 2023 ( YSCEF Doc. 107). Plai 1ti ffs filed a

            Reply Affirmation in supp01t or their motion dated January 2, 2024 (NYSC F Doc. 112).

               IT.      Di.scH siori

                            .l\.. Standard

                     Leave to amend pleadings ls fredy granted in the absence or prej udice if the proposed

            amendment is not palpably insu ffici ent as a matter of law (lvfashinksy v Drescher, 188 A.D3 d 465

            [ 1st Dept 2020)). A part_.1 opposing a motion to amend must demonstrate that it \Vou ld be

            substantially prejudiced by the amendment, or the amendments are putently devoid of merit

            (Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist. V National Un.ion fire Ins .. Co., 298 AD2d 180, 18 1

            ll st Dept 2002 J) .. Delay alone is not sufficient to deny leave to amend (Johnson v lWontejlore
            A1edical Center, 20~ AD3d 462 [l st D "pt 2022]).

                            B. Plaintiffs Failure lo Include an Affidavit of lvforit is not 1:atal to their Motion

                     Preliminarily, Feldman cont•ends that Plaintiffs' motion must be denied because Plaintiff.<;

            have failed to submit an affidavit of merit in support of the application to amer d        YSCEF Doc.

             15376412021 CERIROS MAUR 1C!IO vs.. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT
                                       1
                                                                                                       Page J of 6
             Motion No. 003

[* 3]                                                       3 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 05:01 PM                                                        INDEX NO. 153784/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

            W7 at    17). Specifica lly, Fddman cites to Schulty Roth & Zabel v. Ka sover, 28 A.D. 3d 404; 812

            N. Y.S.2d 874 (1 st Dept. 2006) in support of the assertion that iTa]]though the standard for

            amending a plead.ing is less exacti ng than in moving for summary judgment, there still must be an

            A ffidavit of Me1i t or an offer of evidence simitar to that supporting a summary judgment motion.·•

            Ilov,.:ever, more recent decisions by the Fist Department have he ld) conversely, that on a motion

            for leave to amend pleadings, a plaintiff is ··· not requi red to support its all egations \vith evidence

            or an affidav it of meri t" (St. .1Vicholas J·V 126 l,. P. v Republic Inv. Co.. LLC. l 03 A03d 488, 488~

            489 [}st Dept 202 I J). As such, P lainli ITs' failure to submit an affidavit of merit is. not fatal t > thei r

            n10tion ror leave to file a first amended complaint.

                            C. Plaintiffs) Motion for Le.ave to File a First i\.mended Com taint is Granted

                    As stated above, to successfu lly oppose a motion lo a.mend pleadings a party must

            demonstrate that it would be substantially prejudiced hy the amendment, or that the amendments

            are patently devoid of merit (Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School Dist. V National Union Fire

            Ins. Co .• 298 AD2d 180, 181 [1st D ept 2002]}.

                    Feld.man 1 s opposition fafls to demonstrate or asserl that granting P laintiffs' motion for

            leave to file a first amended c.ornplaint wou ld be prejudicial to Feldman in any v,.:ay (NYSCEF

            D01,:. l 07). Feld man's primary argument in opposition, wi th respect to the product Eability c.laim

            included in P laintiffs' H rst .A.:mended Complaint, is that Plaintiffs have " not s,ct forth a single basis

            in su port of rt11eir] application to amend the mm plaint as then:: has been no testi mony tha lherc

            \vas any .issue with the stack of lumber that fell on to the pla 'ntiff o ther than fallin~ o ver due to

            vibration from the near by pile dri ving activities" ( YSCLP Doc. 107 at ii 14). I fo\vever; Plaintiffs'

            claim in th1; Fi rst Amended Complai nt is i'not that the individual pieces of 3x 1Ox 16 lumber were

            defcct1ve ," but rather that "'the suhject draft of lumber collectively as manufactu red v,dth all of its

             15J784f2021, CERROS, MAURICIO vs . NEW YORK CITY iRANS'IT                                     !Pag:o 4 of 6
             Motion No. 003

[* 4]                                                         4 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 05:01 PM                                                      INDEX NO. 153784/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

            component parts - 1ncluding defective dunnage which was insufficient lo support and stabilize the

            dra ft - ·was defective as manufactured, either in its design and/or manufactme and/or failure to

            warn;1 (NSYCEF Doc_ 98 at ~Iii 90-102). Plaintiffs' Bill of Particulars specifically alleges, inter

            alia that Feldman us•ed improper and defe ctive dunnage, failed to us•e and properly place dunnage,

            allowed an        permitted the use and operation of faulty and defective equiprn.ent including the

            dunnage, bands and ::;tack of lumber, and provided inadequately designed dunnage" (NY ,CEF

            Doc. 10 1 al ~ 7)_

                      ln hgh of the foregoing , the Court finds that Plaintiffs' proposed Fi.rst Amended Complaint

            is not palpably insufficient as a matter of la,:v and \Vilt not result in subslantial prejudice to any

            party. As such, Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file and serve lhe Proposed · ·irst Ame1 ded Complai nt

            is granted.

                      Accordingly, il is he.reby,

                      ORDERFD that Plaintiffs Ivfour' cio Cenos and Enma Cerros' mot' on for an Order granting

            Plajntiffs' motion for leave to file and serve a first amended Lomplaint is granted; and it is further

                      ORDERED tha.t Plaintiff · notion for leave to amend the complain t herein is granted, and

            the amended complaint in the proposed fonn annexed to the moving papers (NYSCEF Doc .. 98)

            shun he deemed served upon service           ora copy of this order with notice of 'ntry thcfeof; and it is
            further

                      ORDERED that within 10 days of entry, counsel for Plainli ffs shall serve a copy of this

            Decisi.011 and Order; with notice of entry, on all parties lo this action; and it is fmther

                      ORDERE D that the defendan ls shal1 serve an answer to the amended complaint or

            o henvise re ·pond thereto \Vithin 20 days from the date of said service~ and i is further

             1537841.2021   CERIROS, MAURICIO vs. NEW YOIRIK C'ITY TRAINS IT                             Page 5, o f 6
             Motion No. 003

[* 5]                                                            5 of 6
  FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/29/2024 05:01 PM                                                        INDEX NO. 153784/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117                                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2024

                    ORDERED that on or before January 23, 2024, the parties shaJl su bmit a propo sed Status

           Con erence Order via NYSCEF and e-mail to SFC -Part3 3-Clerk(q,[nvcourts.gov. If the parti es are

           unable to agree upon a proposed Status Conference Order, the parties shaU appear for an in-person

           status conference on January 24, 2024 al 9:30 a.m. in 60 Centre St ·eet, Room 442 New York,

            New York· and i is further

                    ORDERED that the Clerk of tl1e Court is directed to enter j udgment accordingly.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                     1129/2024
                       DATE                                                        HON. M RY V. ROSADO, J ,S ,C.
             CH CKONE:                      CAS c DISPOSED                    NON.:FINAL 0 1-SPOSITION

                                            GRANITED           □ DENIED       GRANTED lN PART            □ OTIHE:R
             APPUCATION;                    SUTLEORDER                        SUBMIT ORDER

             CH E:CK IF APPROPRIATE:        I N,CLUDES T RANSFE RIREASSIG N   AOUCIARY APPOI N!TMEiNT       REFERENCE

             153 784'2021 CERROS, MA URICIO vs. N E:W YORK CITY T RAN$,I T                                Page   e of &
             Motiion No, 003

[* 6]                                                            6 of 6