Court Opinion

ID: 9962548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:10:36.437558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:01.380056
License: Public Domain

Sobral v Townhouse Bldrs. Inc.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31371(U)
                      April 15, 2024
             Supreme Court, Kings County
        Docket Number: Index No. 507605/2021
                  Judge: Devin P. 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.
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 01:05 PM                                                                 INDEX NO. 507605/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

            Supreme Court of the State of New York                          Index Number                      507605/2021
            County of Kings                                                 Seqs. Ol'Y5z OOH

                           Part LLl M                                               DECISION/ORDER

            DORNELL YS CORREA SOBRAL,                                      Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a), of the paper
                                                                           considered in the review of this Motion

                                                      Plaintiffs,                              Papers Numbered
                                                                           Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed .... 1-2
                                                                           Order to Show Cause and Affidavits Annexed.
                           against                                         Answering Affidavits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
                                                                           Replying Affidavits ...................... _i__
                                                                           Exhibits ............................... _ _
            TOWNHOUSE BUILDERS INC., individually and doing                Other ................................. . _ _
            business as PROMONT, TOWNHOUSE BUILDERS INC., and
            BUDDIES BRO LLC,
                                               Defendant.

                  Upon the foregoing papers, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment (Seq. 003)

           and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (Seq. 004) are decided as follows:

           Factual Background

                  Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for damages he claims to have sustained on

           June 29, 2020 while in the course of his employment for non-party Magellan Concrete

           Structures. Plaintiff contends that he was struck by an unsecured or improperly secured steel

           beam involved in the installation of a Titan Framework HV (Titan) system on what was at the

           time still a dirt floor (Sobral second EBT at 13, 22, 47).

                  Joshua Jacobson, an employee of Townhouse Builders Inc. (Townhouse) and site-safety

           manager at the worksite, authenticated a contract identifying Buddies Bro, LLC (Buddies) as the

           owner of the premises and Townhouse as the general contractor. Townhouse sub-contracted

           with Magellan, which was the concrete super-structure sub-contractor. The project involved the

           construction of a ground-up eight-story residential building.

                                                             1

                                                          1 of 6
[* 1]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 01:05 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 507605/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

                   The following facts are undisputed: Plaintiff was manually supporting a shoring post and

           his co-worker, Jose, was holding another post approximately five feet away. Another of

           plaintiffs co-workers, Pablo, was placing a beam across the shoring posts. Pablo climbed down

           the ladder he was standing on to retrieve the materials to affix the beam in place. At that point,

           the beam fell from the shoring posts and struck plaintiff.

                   It is undisputed that Titan's manual recommends the use of"tripods" to hold the shoring

           posts (or "first place poles") in place during the installing of the horizontal cross-beams.

           Plaintiff testified that he asked his foreman, Alison, if there were tripods available and Alison

           responded that they were to be delivered but Alison did not know when (Sobral first EBT at

           109). Plaintiffs contention that there were no tripods available at the site when he was

           instructed to perform his task is unrebutted.

           Analysis

                   On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the initial burden of making

           a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact (Giuffrida v Citibank, l 00

           NY2d 72, 81 [2003]). Once a prima facie showing has been established, the burden shifts to the

           non-moving party to rebut the movant's showing such that a trial of the action is required

           (Alvarez v Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

                  Labor Law§ 240 (1)

                   With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240 (1) applies where the falling of an object

           is related to "a significant risk inherent in ... the relative elevation ... at which materials or

           loads must be positioned or secured" (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259; 267-68

           [2001], quoting Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509,514 [1991] [alteration in

           original]). In that regard, "a plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being

                                                              2

                                                           2 of 6
[* 2]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 01:05 PM                                                      INDEX NO. 507605/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           hoisted or secured, or that the falling object required securing for the purposes of the

           undertaking" (Banscher v Actus Lend Lease, LLC, 103 AD3d 823, 824 [2d Dept 2013]). It is not

           necessary that the object that fell was actually in the process of being hoisted rather than

           stationary prior to falling (Escobar v Safi, 150 AD3d 1081, 1083 [2d Dept 2017], citing Outar v

           City ofNew York, 286 AD2d 671 [2d Dept 2001] [affirmed 5 NY 3d 731 (2005)]).

                   Plaintiff testified that he asked for tripods on the morning of his accident and that there

           were none available at that time (Sobral first EBT at 109). The beam was either being hoisted

           into place or in the process of being secured to the shoring posts at the time of plaintiffs

           accident. Defendants do not offer any rebuttal to plaintiffs testimony. In light of plaintiffs

           unrebutted testimony that he was struck by a falling object due to a failure to secure that object,

           and a failure to even secure the post that it was resting on with a tripod, plaintiff is entitled to

           summary judgment on his claim under Labor Law§ 240 (1).

                  Labor Law§ 241 (6)

                  To prevail on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6), plaintiff must show that

           he was (1) on a job site, (2) engaged in qualifying work, and (3) suffered an injury (4) the

           proximate cause of which was a violation of an Industrial Code provision (Moscati v

           Consolidated Edison Co. ofN.Y., Inc., 168 AD3d 717, 718 [2d Dept 2019]). Plaintiff does not

           oppose dismissal of all alleged violations of the Industrial Code except:

                      §23-2.2 (a) ("Forms, shores and reshores shall be structurally safe and shall be.
                      properly braced or tied together so as to maintain position and shape"); and

                      2.2 (c) (1. ... "Shores and reshores shall be properly seated top and bottom and shall
                      be. secured in place").

           Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as predicated on these two

           code provisions. It is unrebutted that the shores were being manually supported by workers and

                                                              3

                                                           3 of 6
[* 3]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 01:05 PM                                                     INDEX NO. 507605/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           were neither seated nor properly braced. Defendant's own expert, Michael Cronin P.E.,

           acknowledges that the Titan literature recommends installation using a tripod (Cronin aff. at 1

           10). Mr. Cronin's subsequently offered legal opinions about the applicability of the Labor Law

           to the facts of this case are unavailing.

                  In opposition, defendants argue that the shores and structure were in the process of being

           constructed, and therefore could not have been secured at the time of plaintiffs accident.

           However, this contention is undermined by plaintiffs testimony, and defendants' acquiescence,

           to the existence of a tripod that was designed to st.abilize the shores during the installation of the

           beams. Failure to provide these tripods, and by extension to secure the shores, constitutes a

           violation of the Industrial Code. Plaintiffs motion is therefore granted as to Labor Law § 241

           (6).

                   Labor Law § 200

                  Labor Law§ 200 is a codification of the common-law duty oflandowners and general

           contractors to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work" (Pacheco v Smith, 128

           AD3d 926, 926 [2d Dept 2015]). Thus, claims for negligence and for violations of Labor Law§

           200 are evaluated using the same negligence analysis (Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d 54, 61 [2d

           Dept 2008]). "[W]hen a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or

           materials of the work, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had under

           Labor Law § 200 unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or

           control the performance of the work. Although property owners often have a general authority to

           oversee the progress of the work, mere general supervisory authority at a worksite for the

           purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to

           impose liability under Labor Law§ 200. A defendant has the authority to supervise or control

                                                              4

                                                           4 of 6
[* 4]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 01:05 PM                                                    INDEX NO. 507605/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the

           manner in which the work is performed" (id. at [internal citations omitted]).

                  As an initial matter, plaintiff has withdrawn his Labor Law§ 200 claim against Buddies.

           Defendant Townhouse seeks summary judgment on plaintiffs claim; plaintiff did not seek

           summary judgment on this claim.

                  Townhouse contends that it did not have the authority to supervise the work of plaintiff's

           employer and, therefore, is not subject to liability pursuant to Labor Law§ 200 (Townhouse

           affirmation in reply at ,r 4). Joshua Jacobson was employed by Townhouse as the site safety

           manager. Mr. Jacobson was responsible for initiating and maintaining a site-safety program at

           the site (see AIA contract between owner and general contractor). Mr. Jacobson testified that

           his duties included "overall safety of the project as well as quality control of the project and

           liaison between our company, the owner, the engineers and the architect" (Jacobson EBT at 13).

           Mr. Jacobson was on site on a daily basis and was responsible for instituting a site-wide safety

           program (id. at 25). Mr. Jacobson photographed the erection of the shoring system (id. at 29,

           30). The fact that Mr. Jacobson, a representative of Townhouse, was daily on site, directly

           observing the work ofTownhouse's sub-contractors, and was present to observe the means and

           methods of the work that led to plaintiff's injury precludes summary judgment for Townhouse on

           plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 claim. Material questions of fact exist as to, inter alia, the extent of

           Mr. Jacobson's authority to direct the manner of the work or to stop work if he observed a

           dangerous condition as part of his safety responsibilities. Townhouse's motion is therefore

           denied as to plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 claim.

                                                             5

                                                          5 of 6
[* 5]
  FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/18/2024 01:05 PM                                                INDEX NO. 507605/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 101                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/18/2024

           Conclusion

                  Plaintiff's motion (Seq. 003) is granted; defendant's cross-motion (Seq. 004) is granted to

           the extent that plaintiff's Labor Law§ 200 claim against Buddies is dismissed, and the remainder

           of the motion is denied.

                  This constitutes·the decision and order of the court.

              April 15. 2024
           DATE

                                                            6

                                                         6 of 6
[* 6]