Court Opinion

ID: 9930457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 21:07:51.80953+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:17:29.568560
License: Public Domain

Reyes-Guevara v 722 Metro. LLC
               2024 NY Slip Op 30361(U)
                    February 2, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 151479/2020
                  Judge: Paul A. Goetz
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. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. PAUL A. GOETZ                                                  PART                                47
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X      INDEX NO.           151479/2020
             HALMAR REYES-GUEVARA,
                                                                                                     MOTION DATE          10/11/2023
                                                         Plaintiff,
                                                                                                     MOTION SEQ. NO.           003
                                                 - V -

             722 METROPOLITAN LLC, GOTHAM NEW YORK LLC,
             ALBA SERVICES, INC., CAPSTONE CONTRACTING                                                 DECISION + ORDER ON
             CORPORATION,                                                                                    MOTION

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

             722 METRO POLITAN LLC, GOTHAM NEW YORK LLC                                                           Third-Party
                                                                                                            Index No. 595639/2020
                                                          Plaintiffs,

                                                  -against-

             ALBA SERVICES, INC., CAPSTONE CONTRACTING
             CORPORATION

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

             722 METRO POLITAN LLC, GOTHAM NEW YORK LLC                                                       Second Third-Party
                                                                                                            Index No. 595118/2022
                                                          Plaintiffs,

                                                  -against-

             OAK PARK ENTERPRISES INC., FRIENDLY HAND LABOR
             CORP.

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 100, 101,102,103,
            104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120
            were read on this motion to/for                                                       JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

             151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                                                   Page 1 of 11
             Motion No. 003

                                                                           1 of 11
[* 1]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

                   In this Labor Law personal injury action arising out of a construction worker's fall from a

            stack of iron reinstallation bars (rebars) on top of a platform, plaintiff moves unopposed for

            summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 on his Labor Law§§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6)

            claims as against defendants 722 Metropolitan LLC (722 Metropolitan) and Gotham New York

            LLC (Gotham) (collectively, defendants).

                                                      BACKGROUND

                   Defendant 722 Metropolitan owns a building located at 722 Metropolitan A venue,

            Brooklyn, New York 11211 (NYSCEF Doc No 1). In a construction management agreement

            dated May 2, 2017, 722 Metropolitan hired defendant Gotham to "cause to be performed and

            provided through Trade Contractors[] all labor, material, equipment, tools and services required

            for the complete construction of the Project," the conversion of a former factory into a 7-story

            multi-family residential building with a commercial space on the first floor (NYSCEF Doc No

            117, § 2.1). Gotham was tasked with "supervi[ng] the performance of the Work by Trade

            Contractors" and "all safety precautions" (id., §§ 3 .4(b ), 17 .1.1 ). In a sub-contract agreement

            dated May 4, 2017, Gotham hired third-party defendant Alba Services, Inc. (Alba) to "perform

            all work ... necessary for the construction and completion of the excavation, soe, underpinning,

            concrete (foundation and superstructure) work for the project" (NYSCEF Doc No 118 § 1.4,

            emphasis removed). Alba subsequently hired third-party defendant Capstone Contracting

            Corporation (Capstone) as a second-tier subcontractor to assist (NYSCEF Doc No 119).

            Capstone was plaintiffs employer (NYSCEF Doc No 115).

                   Plaintiffs work entailed the installation of iron rebars for the building's flooring; this

            stage came after carpenters had set down a wooden base, and before another tradesman would

            pour concrete over the rebars (NYSCEF Doc No 114, 49:25-50: 17). The rebars, which were each

             151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                              Page 2 of 11
             Motion No. 003

                                                           2 of 11
[* 2]
                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            approximately 20-30 feet long (id. at 59:4-8), were bundled together with wire when they arrived

            at the jobsite (id. at 53:25-54: 17). 1 Upon delivery, they would be placed on a platform that was

            roughly 3-4 feet high, such that the top of the bundle would be elevated about 5-6 feet from the

            floor (id. at 61 :6-13). Plaintiff, who is 5 feet and 10 inches tall (id.), had a practice of climbing

            onto the platform, and then up on top of the iron bundle, so that he could clip the wires holding

            the rebars together (id. at 86: 13-87:6, 93:5-7). He would then pull out as many rebars as he could

            comfortably manage at once and carry them down from the platform (id. at 53:25-54: 17). He

            would place the rebar on the floor and tie it down with wire, attaching each rebar to the one

            installed before it (id. at 57:10-14). There were tradesmen from other companies who performed

            work in the same space, but plaintiff had never heard of 722 Metropolitan or Gotham (id. at

            65:21-66:4).

                       The date of plaintiffs accident, February 4, 2019 (id. at 33-11), was about two weeks

            into his assignment at the jobsite (id. at 48: 14-21). A few hours into his workday (id. at 43: 13-15,

            74: 15-16), plaintiff climbed onto a bundle of iron standing on top of the platform and cut the

            wire holding the rebars together, as he normally did (id. at 59: 18-21 ). With plaintiff and a

            coworker taking hold of either side of a rebar, they pulled it out of the pile (id. at 77: 17-21 ),

            using "a lot of strength" to free it, at which point plaintiff lost his grip and fell to his right (id. at

            58:13-20, NYSCEF Doc No 102, ,i,i 62-64). Since plaintiff had "nowhere to grab onto" (id. at

            77:15-16), he hit the floor. He then reported the incident to his supervisor, Christian (id. at 64:6-

            13, 69: 19-21 ). 2 As a result of this fall, plaintiff alleges that he has suffered severe physical

            injuries (NYSCEF Doc No 1, ,J,J 50-51).

            1
                Plaintiff does not know who delivered the rebar (id. at 88:9-15).
            2
                Plaintiff does not know who employed Christian (id. at 47:2-7).
                151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                              Page 3 of 11
                Motion No. 003

                                                                    3 of 11
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            Stuart Samtur' s Deposition

                   Samtur testified as a principal of Gotham (NYSCEF Doc No 116, 10: 18-20). He stated

            that Gotham was responsible for supervising the performance of work by any contractors or

            subcontractors on the project (id. at 15:5-8). This entailed sending the company's assistant

            construction superintendent, John Doko, to make daily visits to the jobsite and take note of any

            safety hazards (id. at 18:20-19: 12, 24: 17-25: 10). He stated that Gotham had the authority to stop

            work in the case of any noncompliance with safety regulations (id. at 27: 14-18). Samtur testified

            that he first heard plaintiff's name in connection with this lawsuit and was unfamiliar with the

            circumstances of his accident (id. at 47:21-48:13).

                   Plaintiff brought this action against defendants, alleging violations of Labor Law§§ 200,

            240(1), 241(6) and common law negligence (NYSCEF Doc No 1). Plaintiff moves unopposed

            for summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law§§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims as

            against defendants 722 Metropolitan and Gotham (MS #3, NYSCEF Doc No 103).

                                                      DISCUSSION

                   "It is well settled that 'the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima

            facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to

            demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact"' (Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060,

            1062 [2016], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]). "Failure to make

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

            (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). "Once such a prima facie

            showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce

             151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                           Page 4 of 11
             Motion No. 003

                                                          4 of 11
[* 4]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise material issues of fact which require a

            trial of the action" (Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553-54 [1st Dept 2010]).

                   "The court's function on a motion for summary judgment is merely to determine if any

            triable issues exist, not to determine the merits of any such issues or to assess credibility"

            (Meridian Mgt. Corp. v Cristi Cleaning Serv. Corp., 70 AD3d 508, 510-11 [1st Dept 2010]

            [internal citations omitted]). The evidence presented in a summary judgment motion must be

            examined "in the light most favorable to the non-moving party" (Schmidt v One New York Plaza

            Co. LLC, 153 AD3d 427,428 [2017], quoting Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339

            [2011]) and bare allegations or conclusory assertions are insufficient to create genuine issues of

            fact (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223,231 [1978]). If there is any doubt as to the

            existence of a triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied (Rotuba Extruders

            v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223,231 [1978]).

            Labor Law § 200 Claim

                   Labor Law§ 200 "is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or

            general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work" (Singh v Black

            Diamonds LLC, 24 AD3d 138, 139 [1st Dept 2005], citing Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas

            Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]). It provides, in relevant part: "All places to which this chapter

            applies shall be so constructed, equipped, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide

            reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, health and safety of all persons employed therein

            or lawfully frequenting such places" (Labor Law§ 200[1]). "In order to prevail on such a claim

            against an owner or general contractor, a plaintiff must prove that the party so charged had

            authority or control over the activity causing the injury, thus enabling it to avoid or correct an

            unsafe condition" (0 'Sullivan v IDI Constr. Co., Inc., 28 AD3d 225,226 [1st Dept 2006]).

             151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                             Page 5 of 11
             Motion No. 003

                                                           5 of 11
[* 5]
                                                                                                               INDEX NO. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            Plaintiff argues that Gotham3 should be held liable under the statute on the basis that it was the

            general contractor on the project and created or had knowledge of the hazardous condition

            alleged.

                      Plaintiff has not established his entitlement to judgment as a matter oflaw on the issue of

            Gotham's liability under Labor Law§ 200. Samtur acknowledged in his deposition that Gotham

            was responsible for supervising the performance of work by subcontractors (NYSCEF Doc No

            116, 15:5-8); that Doko made daily visits to the jobsite (id. at 18:20-19: 12); and that Gotham had

            the authority to stop work if any violations of safety regulations were discovered (id. at 27: 14-

            18). Nonetheless, it is unclear whether Gotham had control over plaintiffs work as required to

            hold a general contractor liable (0 'Sullivan, 28 AD3d at 226 [the record must show that "the

            general contractor[] supervised, controlled or directed the performance of plaintiffs job"]). As

            plaintiffs own testimony demonstrates, he had never heard of Gotham at the time of his accident

            (NYSCEF Doc No 114, 65:21-66:4), nor did he know which entity employed his only

            supervisor, Christian (id. at 64:6-13, 47:2-7) (0 'Sullivan, 28 AD3d at 226 ["Plaintiff has

            admitted never speaking with or taking instructions from anyone other than his supervisor," who

            was also employed by the subcontractor]). Where, as here, an injury arises from the

            subcontractor's methods of performing the work (Sotarriba v 346 W 17th St. LLC, 179 AD3d

            599, 601 [1st Dept 2020]), to hold the general contractor liable, it must be shown that the general

            contractor "exercised actual supervision and control over plaintiffs activity, rather than

            possessing merely a general supervisory authority" (Mitchell v NY Univ., 12 AD3d 200,200

            [1st Dept 2004] [emphasis added]; Vasiliades v Lehrer McGovern & Bovis, Inc., 3 AD3d 400,

            401-02 [1st Dept 2004] [general contractor's "general supervision and coordination of the

            3
              Plaintiff does not present an argument that 722 Metropolitan should be held liable under Labor Law § 200 and
            therefore summary judgment will not be granted as against it on this cause of action.
                151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                                    Page 6 of 11
                Motion No. 003

                                                                6 of 11
[* 6]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            worksite was insufficient to trigger liability"]; 0 'Sullivan, 28 AD3d at 226 ["Absent any

            evidence that [the general contractor] gave anything more than general instructions as to what

            needed to be done, as opposed to how to do it, [it] cannot be held liable under Labor Law §

            200"]). Thus, as there are questions of fact as to whether Gotham had actual control over

            plaintiffs work, it cannot be found liable as a matter oflaw (Mitchell, 12 AD3d at 200-01

            [general contractor monitored subcontractor's work but "had no direct involvement in the

            performance of plaintiffs work," which was "admittedly overseen and directed by the

            subcontractor's personnel"]).

                   Moreover, "the proponent of a Labor Law § 200 claim must demonstrate that the

            defendant had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly unsafe condition that caused the

            accident, and such notice must "call attention to the specific defect or hazardous condition and its

            specific location" (Mitchell, 12 AD3d at 201 ). Here, plaintiff argues that defendant must have

            had notice of the dangerous condition because "Mr. Samtur testified that his site supervisor Mr.

            Doko was on the job site every day and conducted daily site walk-through inspections which

            were logged" (NYSCEF Doc No 103). This testimony raises a question of fact, and even ifDoko

            noticed rebars stacked on the platform, it has not been established that he was on notice of the

            dangerous practice of Capstone employees climbing on top of the stacks (Burton v CW Equities,

            LLC, 97AD3d 462,462 [1st Dept 2012] ["Whether [a party] had the requisite notice of the

            dangerous condition is an issue of fact raised by its principal' s testimony that he visited the site

            approximately every other day").

                   Plaintiff has not met his prima facie burden of demonstrating entitlement to judgment as a

            matter oflaw, and accordingly, the portion of his motion seeking summary judgment on

            Gotham's liability on his Labor Law§ 200 claim will be denied.

             151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                             Page 7 of 11
             Motion No. 003

                                                           7 of 11
[* 7]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            Labor Law § 241 ( 6) Claim

                   Labor Law§ 241(6) provides that "[a]ll areas in which construction, excavation or

            demolition work is being performed shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded,

            arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to

            the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places" (Labor Law§ 241[6]). In

            order to state a viable Labor Law § 241 claim, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant violated

            a specific standard of conduct under the Industrial Code ( Toussaint v Port Auth. of NY, 3 8

            NY3d 89, 94 [2022]). Notably, the obligations imposed under Labor Law§ 241 are non-

            delegable, meaning that once a plaintiff has established a violation, he need not demonstrate that

            the owner or general contractor exercised supervision or control over the worksite (Ross v

            Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 502 [1993]; Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91

            NY2d 343, 348-49 [1998] ["section 241 (6) imposes liability upon a general contractor for the

            negligence of a subcontractor, even in the absence of control or supervision of the worksite"]

            [emphasis in original]).

                   Plaintiff relies on 12 NYCRR § 23-1.16, which governs the use of safety belts, harnesses,

            tail lines and safety lines, as the basis for his Labor Law§ 241(6) claim. However, as even

            plaintiff seems to recognize (NYSCEF Doc No 103 ["there is no Industrial Code section

            addressing the complete failure to provide ladders or scaffolds for reaching materials stored at

            elevation"]), his "reliance on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR § [23-1.16] is misplaced"

            (Dzieran v 1800 Boston Rd., LLC, 25 AD3d 336,337 [1st Dept 2006]). That section, "which

            set[s] standards for [safety belts and harnesses, does] not apply because plaintiff was not

            provided with any such safety devices" (id.; Phillip v 525 E. 80th St. Condominium, 93 AD3d

            578,579 [1st Dept 2012] [§ 23-1.16 "sets forth only the standards for the use of such devices ...

             151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                           Page 8 of 11
             Motion No. 003

                                                         8 of 11
[* 8]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            and is inapplicable where, as here, defendant did not provide plaintiff with any such devices"];

            Cordeiro v TS Midtown Holdings, LLC, 87 AD3d 904, 906 [1st Dept 2011] [where plaintiff fell

            from an elevated point, "Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs Labor Law§ 241 (6) claim

            to the extent it is based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.16, since plaintiff[] never alleged [that he] was given

            defective safety equipment"]).

                   Accordingly, since plaintiffs Labor Law§ 241(6) claim is not based on an applicable

            Industrial Code provision, summary judgment on liability under this section will be denied.

            Labor Law§ 240(1) Claim

                   Labor Law§ 240, known as New York's "Scaffold Law," requires that "[a]ll contractors

            and owners and their agents, ... furnish or erect [ladders] and other devices which shall be so

            constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed." (Labor

            Law§ 240[1]). "To prevail on a Labor Law§ 240 (1) claim, a plaintiff must establish that the

            statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injury" (Cutaia v Bd. of

            Mgrs. of the 160/170 Varick St. Condo., 38 NY3d 1037, 1042-43 [2022]). The protections of this

            section "do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with

            the effects of gravity" (Ross, 81 NY2d at 501). Rather, the injury must be "attributable to the

            kind of extraordinary elevation-related risk that the statute was intended to guard against" (Sihly

            v New York City Tr. Auth., 282 AD2d 337 [2001]). As with Labor Law§ 241, the obligations

            imposed by this section are non-delegable (Ross, 81 NY2d at 500).

                   Plaintiff has met his prima facie burden by establishing that he was working at an

            elevated level (Auriemma v Biltmore Theatre, LLC, 82 AD3d 1, 5 [1st Dept 2011] [four-foot-

            deep open pit at worksite constituted an elevation-related hazard]); defendants did not provide

            plaintiff with any safety device for the performance of this work (Clavijo v Atlas Terms., LLC,

             151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                           Page 9 of 11
             Motion No. 003

                                                         9 of 11
[* 9]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 151479/2020
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 144                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024

            104 AD3d 475,476 [1st Dept 2013] [plaintiff entitled to summary judgment where defendant

            "failed to provide any safety devices"]); and plaintiffs injury was the direct result of a gravity-

            related risk (Naughton v City ofNew York, 94 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2012] [finding Labor Law§

            240(1) liability where defendant failed to provide a ladder, requiring plaintiff to climb on top of

            bundles of material on a flatbed truck, from which plaintiff fell]).

                    Accordingly, since 722 Metropolitan and Gotham failed to raise an issue of fact, or

            indeed oppose plaintiffs motion, that portion of plaintiffs motion seeking summary judgment

            on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim will be granted (Pichardo v Urban Renaissance Collaboration

            Ltd. Partnership, 51 AD3d 472, 472-73 [1st Dept 2008] [granting summary judgment in

            plaintiffs favor where "[ d]efendants failed to set forth a conflicting theory ... sufficient to raise

            a triable issue of fact"]; Auriemma, 82 AD at 5 ["Because the defendants have not raised an issue

            of fact with regard to a violation of the statute or whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate

            cause of his own injuries, partial summary judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff."]).

                                                         CONCLUSION

                    Based on the foregoing, it is

                    ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law§ 240(1)

            claim as against 722 Metropolitan and Gotham is granted, and it is further

                    ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is otherwise denied.

                     2/2/2024
                      DATE                                                         PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                    NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED          □ DENIED        GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                     SUBMIT ORDER

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

             151479/2020 REYES-GUEVARA, HALMAR vs. 722 METROPOLITAN LLC                             Page 10 of 11
             Motion No. 003

                                                           10 of 11
[* 10]