Court Opinion

ID: 9958775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:11:32.082727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:49.431868
License: Public Domain

McGiver v City of New York
               2024 NY Slip Op 31043(U)
                     March 28, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 157640/2020
                   Judge: Judy H. Kim
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 03/28/2024 05:00 PM                                                                       INDEX NO. 157640/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                                     SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                               NEW YORK COUNTY
          PRESENT:                 HON. JUDY H. KIM                                                PART                              04
                                                                                    Justice
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X       INDEX NO.          157640/2020
                MARGARET POWER MCGIVER,
                                                                                                   MOTION DATE         05/30/2023
                                                           Plaintiff,
                                                                                                   MOTION SEQ. NO.         004
                                                   -v-
                THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY PARKS
                DEPARTMENT, THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL
                HISTORY, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,                                           DECISION + ORDER ON
                BREEZE NATIONAL INC, JOHN CIVETTA & SONS,                                                  MOTION
                INC.,JOHN CIVETTA CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

                                                           Defendants.
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

                THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY PARKS
                DEPARTMENT, THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL
                HISTORY, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
                BREEZE NATIONAL INC, JOHN CIVETTA & SONS,
                INC.,JOHN CIVETTA CONSTRUCTION CORP.,

                                                           Third-Party Plaintiffs,
                                                                                                       Index No. 595932/2022
                                                     -v-

                ANCHORMEN CONSTRUCTION LLC,

                                                            Third-Party Defendants.
                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

          Ind

          The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 111, 112, 113, 114,
          115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123
          were read on this motion to                                                    VACATE/STRIKE - NOTE OF ISSUE               .

                        Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by defendants the City of New York, the

          American Museum of Natural History, Tishman Construction Corp., John Civetta & Sons, Inc.

                157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                               Page 1 of 6
                Motion No. 004

        [* 1]
                                                                             1 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM                                                  INDEX NO. 157640/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

          and John Civetta Construction Corp. to vacate the note of issue and remove this action from the

          trial calendar (or, alternatively, permit certain post-note of issue discovery) is granted and the note

          of issue is vacated.

                                              PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

                  On September 17, 2020, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that on March 12, 2020

          she was working as an employee of Anchormen Construction, LLC (“Anchormen”) at 365

          Columbus Avenue, New York, New York when she was injured due to defendants’ negligence,

          and asserting claims for common law negligence and claims under Labor Law §§200, 240(1) and

          241(6) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2 [Compl.]).

                  On April 8, 2021, defendants commenced a third-party action against Anchormen,

          contending that any injuries plaintiff sustained were due solely to Anchormen’s negligence and

          asserting claims for contractual and common law indemnification and contribution (NYSCEF Doc.

          No. 17 [Third Party Answer at ¶22]).

                  On November 9, 2022, plaintiff and defendants entered into a discovery stipulation,

          subsequently so ordered, which directed defendants to “re-file the third-party complaint on or

          before 11/18/22” and added that “if [Anchormen] does not appear or answer within 30 days of this

          filing, the third-party action will be preemptively severed” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 58)(emphasis

          added). Defendants then re-filed their third-party complaint (denominated a “Second Third Party

          Complaint”) on NYSCEF on November 17, 2022 and served same on Anchormen via the New

          York State Secretary of State on December 6, 2022 and via personal service on December 13,

          2022.

           157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                               Page 2 of 6
           Motion No. 004

         [* 2]
                                                         2 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 157640/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                 Anchormen answered the Third-Party Complaint on February 8, 2023.

                 On April 3, 2023, the parties filed another stipulation providing, as pertinent here, that all

          parties were to respond to Anchormen’s written demands within thirty days and extending

          plaintiff’s time to sever the third-party action and file the note of note of issue to May 5, 2023

          (NYSCEF Doc. No. 101). Plaintiff did not make any effort to sever the third-party action by that

          date, though she did file the note of issue on May 8, 2023.

                 On May 30, 2023, defendants filed the instant motion, arguing that vacatur is necessary as

          “written discovery is still being exchanged between defendants and Anchormen and the

          examination before trial of Anchormen has yet to occur,” and an orthopedic and neurological IME

          of plaintiff were also outstanding (NYSCEF Doc. No. 112 [Hopkins Affirm. at ¶14]).

                                                     DISCUSSION

                 Defendants’ motion is granted. 22 NYCRR §202.21(e) provides, in pertinent part, that “the

          court may vacate the note of issue if it appears that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is

          incorrect, or that the certificate of readiness fails to comply with the requirements of this section

          in some material respect.” Here, plaintiff’s certificate of readiness stated that discovery was

          completed when it is undisputed that, per the parties’ April 3, 2023 stipulation, discovery was

          outstanding in the third-party action. To the extent plaintiff asserts that the third-party action was

          severed and therefore any outstanding discovery in that action has no bearing here, the Court

          disagrees.

                 Contrary to plaintiff’s interpretation of the November 9, 2022 stipulation, it did not serve

          to sever the third-party action, “preemptively” or otherwise. First, this stipulation indicates that

          any severance is conditioned upon Anchormen’s failure to file a third-party answer within twenty

          days of defendants’ filing of the third-party complaint. As such, any severance necessarily would

           157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                Page 3 of 6
           Motion No. 004

         [* 3]
                                                         3 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM                                                 INDEX NO. 157640/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

          require an application to the Court including proof of such default prior to any severance. This

          conclusion is supported by the parties’ subsequent stipulation setting an outside date for plaintiff

          to “sever the third party action.” Notably, plaintiff did not make any such application or motion in

          the time frame allotted or anytime thereafter.

                 The Court declines to extend plaintiff’s time to make such an application, for two reasons:

          First, the parties’ stipulation impermissibly narrowed the deadline for Anchormen to interpose a

          third-party answer, directing that it do so within twenty days of the filing of the third-party

          complaint rather than within twenty (or thirty) days from defendants’ service of the third-party

          complaint (See CPLR §320[a]). Accordingly, any default by Anchormen under this stipulation is

          of no effect and not grounds for severance.

                 Additionally, the Court notes that “[a]lthough it is within a trial court’s discretion to grant

          a severance, this discretion should be exercised sparingly” and is disfavored where, as here “the

          claims against the defendants involve common factual and legal issues, and the interests of judicial

          economy and consistency of verdicts will be served by having a single trial” (Barrett v New York

          City Health and Hosps. Corp., 150 AD3d 949, 950-51 [2d Dept 2017] [internal citations and

          quotations omitted]; see also Range v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of NY, 150 AD3d

          515, 516 [1st Dept 2017]).

                 Accordingly, it is hereby

                 ORDERED that defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue is granted and the note of

          issue is vacated and the case is stricken from the trial calendar; and it is further

                 ORDERED that defendants shall, within fifteen days from the date of this decision and

          order, serve a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, on all parties and upon the

           157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                              Page 4 of 6
           Motion No. 004

         [* 4]
                                                           4 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM                                                   INDEX NO. 157640/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

          Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office, who is hereby directed to strike the case from the trial calendar

          and make all required notations thereof in the records of the court; and it is further

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office shall be made

          in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk

          Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s

          website); and it is further

                    ORDERED that defendants shall, within twenty days from the date of this decision and

          order, notice an IME limited to plaintiff’s October 25, 2023 surgical procedure (noticed by filing

          and servicing of a Supplemental Bill of Particulars on January 9, 2024 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 129]);

          and it is further

                    ORDERED that said IME is to be held within sixty days of the date of the notice; and it is

          further

                    ORDERED that defendants shall exchange IME reports within thirty days from the date

          of plaintiff’s IME; and it is further

                    ORDERED that, upon the completion of discovery as outlined above, the plaintiff shall

          cause the action to be placed upon the trial calendar by the filing of a new note of issue and

          certificate of readiness (for which no fee shall be imposed), to which shall be attached a copy of

          this order the plaintiff shall move to reinstate the note of issue as provided in Uniform Rule

          §202.21(f); and it is further

           157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                Page 5 of 6
           Motion No. 004

          [* 5]
                                                         5 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 157640/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024

                   ORDERED that the parties are to appear for a status conference in Part 4 (80 Centre Street,

          room 308) on June 7, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at which time the Court will set the date for filing the

          note of issue.

                   This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

                   3/28/2024
                     DATE                                                        HON. JUDY H. KIM, 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

           157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK                                 Page 6 of 6
           Motion No. 004

           [* 6]
                                                          6 of 6