Court Opinion

ID: 9958736
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:10:20.252163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:39.762181
License: Public Domain

Rodriguez v VillageFH, LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 31071(U)
                      April 1, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 154863/2018
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
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. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                               PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X      INDEX NO.          154863/2018
             ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ,
                                                                                                    MOTION DATE          N/A, N/A
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                    MOTION SEQ. NO.      004 005
                                                 -v-
             VILLAGEFH, LLC,SMI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,
                                                                                                      DECISION + ORDER ON
             INC.,
                                                                                                            MOTION
                                                         Defendant.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

             VILLAGEFH, LLC, SMI CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,                                                      Third-Party
             INC.                                                                                        Index No. 595480/2020

                                                          Plaintiff,

                                                 -against-

             DONATO, INC. and INTERIOR ROCK, INC.,

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

            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, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 159, 161,
            163, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 183, 185, 189, 190, 191, 196, 197, 198
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      SUMMARY JUDGMENT                     .

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 134, 135, 136, 137,
            138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158,
            160, 162, 164, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 186, 188, 192, 193, 194, 195
            were read on this motion to/for                                                      JUDGMENT - SUMMARY                   .

                      Motion Sequence numbers 004 and 005 are consolidated for disposition. Defendants

            VillageFH, LLC and SMI Construction Management’s motion (MS004) for summary judgment

            dismissing all claims against it is granted in part and denied in part and plaintiff’s cross-motion

            for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and to amend his bill of
             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                                         Page 1 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                                          1 of 14
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            particulars to add an Industrial Code Section is granted in part and denied in part. The motion

            (MS005) by third-party defendant Interior Rock, Inc. (“Interior Rock”) for summary judgment is

            granted in part and denied in part.

            Background

                    This Labor Law case arises out of an accident involving plaintiff on September 13, 2016.

            On the day of the accident, plaintiff was working for non-party Jovin Demo New York, Inc.

            (“Jovin”), a demolition contractor at a job site in Manhattan. Defendant SMI Construction

            Management, Inc. (“SMI”) was the general contractor.

                    Plaintiff testified that Jovin was hired to “Break debris and chop down some metal”

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 119 at 64). Plaintiff added that he was told he was going to be cutting steel

            on the fourth floor (id. at 68). After plaintiff and his coworkers arrived at the jobsite, Jovin’s

            foreman told him to do downstairs and clear “out the debris that’s dropping from the fourth floor

            to the basement” and take it out to the street (id. at 74).

                    When asked to describe the basement, plaintiff testified that “It was a war zone. You

            have planks everywhere. Certain areas were being excavated and some places weren’t, some

            places were already done, and we had our section where we were working in the pit” (id. at 80).

            Plaintiff insisted that the planks were put down so workers would not have to walk in a ditch

            during the excavation (id.). Prior to his accident, plaintiff estimated that he made about 25 to 35

            trips from the basement to the dumpster outside as part of his debris removal task (id. at 89).

                    Plaintiff testified that his accident occurred as he was leaving the basement while

            carrying a full load of debris on his back (id. at 93-94). He added that “they filled up the bucket

            and hoisted it up on my back. When I’m going out, somebody was coming in. That’s when –

            when we got to each other, that’s when I went straight into the hole (indicating) because we

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                      Page 2 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                           2 of 14
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            nipped each other and I went straight into the hole. If there was a railing there, if there was a

            railing there, I would have bounced back off and kept going, like a boxing match, a wrestling

            match. It wasn’t that. I went straight into the hole. He dropped his bucket. He came to help me

            and I couldn’t get up, my legs were numb” (id. at 94). Plaintiff estimated the fall was about two

            feet (id. at 95).

                    Unfortunately, this is not the only version of the accident offered by plaintiff. When

            plaintiff sought medical treatment, he offered somewhat conflicting accounts of how he was hurt

            that ranged from assertions that he “slipped and fell,” “he fell backwards” and that he “suffered a

            mechanical fall due to an uneven floor” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 190). None of these records suggest

            that his fall was caused because a co-worker bumped into him. And neither plaintiff’s deposition

            testimony nor his bill of particulars suggests that he slipped and fell.

            VillageFH LLC

                    Defendants seek summary judgment with respect to VillageFH on the ground that this

            defendant is entitled to the homeowner’s exception to the Labor Law.

                    “In 1980, the Legislature amended Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 to exempt owners of one

            and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” from the

            absolute liability imposed by these statutory provisions. The amendments, intended by the

            Legislature to shield homeowners from the harsh consequences of strict liability under the

            provisions of the Labor Law, reflect the legislative determination that the typical homeowner is

            no better situated than the hired worker to furnish appropriate safety devices and to procure

            suitable insurance protection” (Bartoo v Buell, 87 NY2d 362, 367, 639 NYS2d 778 [1996]).

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                     Page 3 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                          3 of 14
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   “The homeowner exemption to liability under Labor Law § 240(1) is available to owners

            of one-and two-family dwellings who contract for the performance of work on the premises, but

            who do not direct or control the work. Where . . . the property is used for both residential and

            commercial purposes, the courts employ a flexible site and purpose test to determine whether the

            work contracted for directly relates to the residential use of the building so as to warrant

            application of the exemption” (Nicholas v Phillips, 151 AD3d 731, 731, 54 NYS3d 675 [2d Dept

            2017] [citations omitted]).

                   Here, VillageFH met its burden in the moving papers through the affidavit from the

            general contractor SMI, which noted that VillageFH did not direct or control the work and

            attached a certificate of occupancy for the property that shows it is a single-family residence

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 122).

                   Plaintiff did not raise an issue of fact concerning the application of the homeowner’s

            exception. He contends that the property was commercial on the date of the accident. But that is

            not the dispositive issue here. There is no dispute that SMI claims it was hired to convert the

            property to a residence from 2016 through 2019 and that the certificate of occupancy (issued in

            2019) classifies the property as a residence. The clear purpose of the construction, on this

            record, was residential—that entitles VillageFH to the exemption (Khela v Neiger, 85 NY2d 333,

            338, 624 NYS2d 566 [1995]). Accordingly, all claims against VillageFH are severed and

            dismissed.

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                     Page 4 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                          4 of 14
[* 4]
                                                                                                            INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            Claims Between SMI and Plaintiff

                      SMI,1 the general contractor, moves2 to dismiss plaintiff’s claims based on Labor Law §§

            240(1), 241(6), 241-a and 200. Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment on his Labor Law §

            240(1) and to amend his bill of particulars to add an additional section from the Industrial Code.

                      As an initial matter, plaintiff did not oppose the portion of SMI’s motion that sought

            dismiss his Labor Law §241-a and the following Industrial Code sections.

            Labor Law § 240(1)

                      “Labor Law § 240(1), often called the ‘scaffold law,’ provides that all contractors and

            owners . . . shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected . . . scaffolding, hoists, stays,

            ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so

            constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to construction workers employed

            on the premises” (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 499-500, 601 NYS2d

            49 [1993] [internal citations omitted]). “Labor Law § 240(1) was designed to prevent those types

            of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved

            inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the

            force of gravity to an object or person” (id. at 501).

                      “[L]iability [under Labor Law § 240(1)] is contingent on a statutory violation and

            proximate cause . . . violation of the statute alone is not enough” (Blake v Neighborhood Hous.

            Servs. of NY City, 1 NY3d 280, 287, 771 NYS2d 484 [2003]).

            1
             As the Court dismisses VillageFH from this case, the Court will hereafter refer to only SMI.
            2
             The Court observes that third-party defendant Interior Rock Inc’s motion makes many of the same arguments as
            SMI regarding the alleged insufficiency of plaintiff’s Labor Law claims.
                154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                           Page 5 of 14
                Motion No. 004 005

                                                               5 of 14
[* 5]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   With respect to Labor Law § 240(1), the Court denies both SMI’s motion and plaintiff’s

            cross-motion for this requested relief. As SMI pointed out, plaintiff offered multiple versions of

            how he was injured. In his deposition testimony, he claimed that he was walking on a wood

            pathway (planks) when another worker bumped into him and caused him to fall into the ditch

            below. The Court observes that SMI included medical records in which plaintiff allegedly told

            one facility that “he slipped at work and fell backwards from standing” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 190

            at 3). He told another provider that “he slipped while carrying buckets of debris” (id. at 4) and

            yet another that “he was at work when he was lifting debris” and “[h]e fell backwards” (id. at 7).

            Plaintiff also said that the “suffered a mechanical fall due to an uneven floor” (id. at 8).

                   These varying versions compel the Court to find that there are issues of fact regarding

            exactly how the accident occurred. In particular, these medical reports do not contend that he

            fell because a coworker bumped into him—some say he slipped and fell while others don’t really

            mention the exact cause. And they do not mention that he fell down into a ditch or that the fall

            was about two feet. The fact is that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and the Court cannot

            pick and choose which version of plaintiff’s account should be credited. The Court observes that

            plaintiff’s accounts in these medical records are admissible (Kamolov v BIA Group, LLC, 79

            AD3d 1101, 1101 [2d Dept 2010] [affirming the denial of summary judgment motion in a Labor

            Law case where the medical records raised an issue of fact about how the accident occurred]).

                   The Court adds that it denies this branch of SMI’s motion to dismiss this claim because

            although plaintiff claims he only fell two feet, the total amount is not dispositive. “It is an

            oversimplification to suggest that Labor Law 240(1) does not apply based solely on the distance

            involved” (Brown v 44th St. Dev., LLC, 48 Misc 3d 234, 242 [Sup Ct, NY County 2015], affd

            sub nom. Brown v 44 St. Dev., LLC, 137 AD3d 703 [1st Dept 2016]). In Brown, the Court

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                      Page 6 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                           6 of 14
[* 6]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            granted a plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim where the plaintiff fell only about a foot in a hole

            in between rebar (id.). “The sufficiency of an elevation differential and fall from a height for

            purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) liability cannot, unfortunately, be reduced to a numerical bright-

            line test or automatic minimum/maximum quantification” (Amo v Little Rapids Corp., 301 AD2d

            698, 701, 754 NYS2d 685 [3d Dept 2003]

                   This Court finds that the type of accident alleged here (at least in plaintiff’s deposition

            testimony) is the type of gravity related injury that implicates Labor Law § 240(1). Plaintiff

            alleged that he was carrying heavy debris on his back, which means that falling two feet has

            more serious implications than if he was not loaded down with debris on his back. Put another

            way, if a jury believes that the accident happened the way plaintiff described in his deposition

            testimony, then they might find that it was a gravity-related incident that could have been

            prevented with an adequate safety device such as a handrail. Of course, the Court cannot grant

            summary judgment to plaintiff given the multiple ways in which he described how the accident

            occurred.

            Labor Law § 241(6)

                   “The duty to comply with the Commissioner’s safety rules, which are set out in the

            Industrial Code (12 NYCRR), is nondelegable. In order to support a claim under section 241(6). .

            . the particular provision relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete

            specifications and not simply declare general safety standards or reiterate common-law

            principles” (Misicki v Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 515, 882 NYS2d 375 [2009]). “The regulation

            must also be applicable to the facts and be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury” (Buckley

            v Columbia Grammar and Preparatory, 44 AD3d 263, 271, 841 NYS2d 249 [1st Dept 2007]).

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                     Page 7 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                         7 of 14
[* 7]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                   “Section 241(6) subjects owners and contractors to liability for failing to adhere to

            required safety standards whether or not they themselves are negligent. Supervision of the work,

            control of the worksite, or actual or constructive notice of a violation of the Industrial Code are

            not necessary to impose vicarious liability against owners and general contractors, so long as

            some actor in the construction chain was negligent” (Leonard v City of New York, 216 AD3d 51,

            55-56, 188 NYS3d 471 [1st Dept 2023]).

                   SMI seeks to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law claims to the extent they are based on

            Industrial Code Sections 23-1.22(b)(2), (3), (4) and section (c)(1)-(2).

                   Plaintiff only addresses 23-1.22(b)(2) in his opposition. This section provides that “(2)

            Runways and ramps constructed for the use of persons only shall be at least 18 inches in width

            and shall be constructed of planking at least two inches thick full size or metal of equivalent

            strength. Such surface shall be substantially supported and braced to prevent excessive spring or

            deflection. Where planking is used it shall be laid close, butt jointed and securely nailed.”

                   The Court denies the branch of the motion that seeks to dismiss 23-1.22(b)(2) as the

            record shows that there are issues of fact regarding the width of the planks. Plaintiff testified that

            each plank was about four to five inches wide and that four planks together would stretch

            between 16-20 inches in width (NYSCEF Doc. No. 119 at 85). The expert affidavit from SMI

            does not compel the Court to grant the motion; the expert contends that plaintiff testified that

            each plank was 1 to 1 ½ feet in width (NYSCEF Doc. No. 125, ¶ 7). But, as noted above,

            plaintiff testified that the planks were four to five inches wide and the neither the expert affidavit

            nor SMI’s initial memo of law (NYSCEF Doc. No. 113 at 12) cites to plaintiff’s testimony where

            he says the planks were 1 to 1 ½ feet in width and therefore, when laid together, would have

            been well beyond the 18-inch requirement.

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                      Page 8 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                          8 of 14
[* 8]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                    In reply, SMI argues in paragraph 38 in NYSCEF Doc. No. 189 that plaintiff testified that

            the width of the planks would make the path four to six feet wide and cites to page 84 of

            plaintiff’s deposition testimony. But a review of that citation and the following page does not

            yield testimony that the planks would stretch four to six feet in width; rather plaintiff agreed it

            would stretch 16-20 inches as noted above. Of course, the width here is important because

            plaintiff’s deposition testimony alleged that he was hit by a coworker attempting to walk past

            him. That is, the lack of width may have been a proximate cause of the accident.

                    However, the remaining Industrial Code sections are severed and dismissed as plaintiff

            did not address them—this includes 23-1.22(b)(3), (4) and section (c)(1)-(2).

            Amendment

                    Plaintiff cross-moves to add Industrial Code 23-1.7(b) to his 241(6) claim. This section

            relates to hazardous openings and specifically provides that an opening should be “guarded by . .

            . a safety railing.”

                    SMI claims that it faces unfair surprise given the late date of this proposed amendment.

            It claims that a note of issue has already been filed.

                    The Court grants this branch of plaintiff’s cross-motion. As an initial matter, the Court

            observes that there is no current valid note of issue. This Court struck the note of issue in a

            decision dated November 27, 2023 and there is a conference scheduled for May 2, 2024

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 187). The fact that the case is still on the trial calendar derives from the fact

            that defendants appear to have never served a copy of the Court’s decision (NYSCEF Doc. No.

            165) on the appropriate Court office as directed in that decision to effectuate the removal of this

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                     Page 9 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                          9 of 14
[* 9]
                                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            case from the trial calendar. Therefore, SMI cannot claim unfair surprise or any prejudice

            because the note of issue was stricken.3

            Labor Law 200

                      Labor Law § 200 “codifies landowners’ and general contractors’ common-law duty to

            maintain a safe workplace” (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 NY3d 494, 505, 601

            NYS2d 49 [1993]). “[R]ecovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had unless it

            is shown that the party to be charged exercised some supervisory control over the operation . . .

            [A]n owner or general contractor should not be held responsible for the negligent acts of others

            over whom the owner or general contractor had no direction or control” (id. [internal quotations

            and citation omitted]).

                      “Claims for personal injury under this statute and the common law fall under two broad

            categories: those arising from an alleged defect or dangerous condition existing on the premises

            and those arising from the manner in which the work was performed” (Cappabianca v Skanska

            USA Bldg. Inc., 99 AD3d 139, 143-44, 950 NYS2d 35 [1st Dept 2012]). “Where an existing

            defect or dangerous condition caused the injury, liability attaches if the owner or general

            contractor created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” (id. at 144).

                      “Where an alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from a subcontractor’s methods

            over which the defendant exercises no supervisory control, liability will not attach under either

            the common law or section 200” (Buckley v Columbia Grammar & Preparatory, 44 AD3d 263,

            272, 841 NYS2d 249 [1st Dept 2007]).

            3
              Curiously, defendants previously moved to strike the note of issue, won the motion, and now claim prejudice
            because there is a note of issue. Either defendants are not in command of the history of this case or the argument is
            borderline frivolous. Either way, the amendment is allowed.
                154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                                Page 10 of 14
                Motion No. 004 005

                                                                 10 of 14
[* 10]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                    SMI argues that it had no control over the means and methods of plaintiff’s work for

            Jovin. It claims that no railings were required because the height of the excavated area below

            was only two feet.

                    Plaintiff contends in opposition that SMI’s superintendent testified that he had safety

            responsibilities.

                    In fact, he testified that “we’d take care of everything, you know, safety wise” (NYSCEF

            Doc. No. 121 at 11). He added that SMI handled “site safety issues” for the project at issue here

            (id. at 12). SMI’s witness even testified that “I mean, I walk around the job. If guys didn’t have

            hard hats on, if there was a handrail off, if something looked dangerous, I’d – we’d fix it or we’d

            bring it to someone’s attention and get it done, you know, fixed it” (id. at 65). He admitted that

            on the day of plaintiff’s accident it would have been his responsibility to ensure that Jovin

            employees “had a safe way to exit and enter the basement” (id. at 66).

                    This testimony compels the Court deny this branch of SMI’s motion. Its superintendent

            admitted that he was responsible for site safety and would walk around the job site to ensure that

            the environment was safe. That raises an issue of fact over the degree of control that SMI

            exerted over plaintiff, particularly with regards to the safety issues raised in this motion. Put

            another way, a fact finder must consider whether SMI should have put in a railing to ensure that

            workers removing debris, such as plaintiff, did not risk falling into the excavated area. And SMI

            admits it was its job to fix safety problems.

                    The Court observes that Industrial Code Section 23-1.22(b)(4) requires that there be a

            railing where there is a height of more than four feet. But that is not dispositive as plaintiff is not

            seeking relief under that Industrial Code section and it does not provide a complete defense to a

            Labor Law § 200 claim. Labor Law § 200 is merely a codification of common law negligence

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                      Page 11 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                            11 of 14
[* 11]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            principles; while this Industrial Code section may be persuasive it is not a basis to grant

            summary judgment as a matter of law. A fact finder could conclude that the pathway plaintiff

            was asked to walk across with a heavy load of debris was not safe for that task and find that SMI

            was negligent as it readily admits it was supposed to ensure the jobsite’s safety. Plus, as will be

            discussed below, Interior Rock’s foreman observed that no one should have been walking across

            these planks.

            MS005

                    In this motion, Interior Rock moves for summary judgment. It explains that it was hired

            to do excavation and underpinning work at the jobsite. Interior Rock argues that it had no

            responsibility for overall safety and was not obligated to oversee workers’ entry and exit from

            the basement where plaintiff was working. It insists that it procured an insurance policy as

            required under its contract with SMI that names both SMI and VillageFH as additional insureds.

            It claims that SMI’s request for defense and indemnity against it is therefore without merit

            because it had nothing to do with Jovin’s demolition work.

                    In opposition, SMI claims that Interior Rock was the entity that laid down the wooden

            planks at issue and that it was Interior Rock that would have put any fall protection if it were

            necessary. However, SMI’s opposition is completely silent with respect to its cause of action that

            Interior Rock should have procured insurance.

                    The Court denies the motion because of the inconsistent testimony by Interior Rock’s

            witnesses. Interior Rock’s president testified that he never saw any wooden planks on the ground

            (NYSCEF Doc. No. 150 at 33). When asked about plaintiff’s testimony concerning the planks,

            he insisted he had no idea what plaintiff was talking about (id. at 33-34). In fact, Interior Rock’s

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                    Page 12 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                         12 of 14
[* 12]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

            president insisted that he could not recall any wooden planking at all (NYSCEF Doc. No. 150 at

            37). However, his nephew (who was also the foreman on the site) testified that Interior Rock put

            down planks (NYSCEF Doc. No. 151 at 28). This witness also emphasized that no one should

            walk across these planks “Because they would have been there for fall protection. That was their

            purpose” (id. at 87).

                      This Court cannot make any conclusions as a matter of law based on these conflicting

            testimonies. The Court cannot assess how to evaluate the testimony of Interior Rock’s president

            and that of his nephew; that is for a fact finder. Accordingly, the Court cannot award summary

            judgment to any party on the indemnification causes of action as there is an issue of fact about

            whether Interior Rocks put the planks down.

                      The Court, however, dismisses the cause of action against Interior Rock for failure to

            procure insurance. Interior Rock included proof that it obtained insurance and SMI did not raise

            an issue of fact to suggest that Interior Rock failed to do so.

                      Accordingly, it is hereby

                      ORDERED that VillageFH, LLC and SMI Construction Management’s motion (MS004)

            for summary judgment dismissing all claims against it is granted only the extent that (1) all

            claims against VillageFH, LLC are severed and dismissed and (2) plaintiff’s causes of action

            against SMI Construction Management for Labor Law § 241-a and those portions of plaintiff’s

            Labor Law § 241(6) based on Industrial Code Sections 23-1.22(b)(3), (4) and sections (c)(1)-(2)

            are severed and dismissed and denied with respect to the remaining relief requested; and it is

            further

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                    Page 13 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                          13 of 14
[* 13]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 154863/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 200                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024

                    ORDERED that plaintiff’s cross-motion is granted only to the extent that the branch of

            the motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars is granted and the remaining relief is denied;

            and it is further

                    ORDERED that Interior Rock, Inc’s motion (MS005) is granted only to the extent that

            the claim asserted against it for failure to procure insurance is dismissed and denied with respect

            to the remaining relief requested.

                     4/1/2024                                                            $SIG$
                      DATE                                                       ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
             CHECK ONE:                 CASE DISPOSED                X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                     □
                                        GRANTED             DENIED       GRANTED IN PART              X   OTHER

             APPLICATION:               SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                     □
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:      INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT            REFERENCE

             154863/2018 RODRIGUEZ, ROBERTO vs. VILLAGEFH, LLC                                        Page 14 of 14
             Motion No. 004 005

                                                         14 of 14
[* 14]