FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/23/2016 12:02 PM
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12m2016 12:02 1;)
`NYSCI 3F DOC. NO. 196
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 196
`
`155565/2014
`INDEX NO. 155565/2014
`INDEX NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`SF:
`R*-C fiIVfiD \IYSCI
`12/23/2016
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/23/2016
`
`
`
`
`
`IT a 6A) 9
`
`

`

`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12352016 11.:28 '
`'NYSCEF Doc. NO. 192
`
`
`
`I
`
`INDEX; 1310.. 1555,65/2014
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/16/2016-
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OP- NE_W YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`
`_________H__IS_,“~~,__~HH-__._--_.___----I-S~_-_--T-Swfwg--------»;)(
`BENEDICT D AMIGO,
`
`_
`Index N‘o.:‘ 1555‘6‘5H4
`
`Plaintiff;
`
`NOTICE OF-ENTR-Y
`
`éagainst-
`
`56 LEONARD LLC- and LEN-D LEA-SE (US)
`CONSTRUCTION INC,
`
`Defendants;
`______________'___..-_..-.-._-__--_________________-.._,._...___.____-____HH.S.;X'
`
`56 LIONARD L.I.C and LEND LEASE (US)
`CONSTRUCTIONLMl3 I.NC..
`
`Third-Party Plaintiffs,
`
`~‘a‘gai113L.
`
`LIVINGSTON ELECTRICAL ASSOCIA‘I‘ES,_-_ INC;
`
`Third.Party Defendant.
`_____-_-_-_________W,-HIH________________~___-________-____-..,_--_X
`56. LEONARD LLCand LBND LEASE (US)
`CONSTRUCTION LMB’_ INC .,_
`
`Second Thirlealflty Plaintiffs,
`
`against--
`
`PROFESSIONAL RISK PLANNERS INC,
`
`Second Ihir'd--P'alty Defendant.
`
`PLEASE TAK-E_NOTl'CE,. that .1110 wiIhin 'is 'a' mic: Copy .01" the Order of the.
`
`I-I‘onorablc Geoffrey 11). WrightduIyemered'in lhc-o‘fficfi ofthc Clerk (If-the within. named
`
`Co Lift-011 Decémbcr -9',2-U‘16.-
`
`.1 of 33
`
`

`

`Dated: New York, New York
`December 1-5, 2.01.6.
`
`By:
`
`0 L w.»-
`..................................
`
`AHMUTY, D EMER-S~&' MCMAN'US, ESQSL
`Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant-
`LIVINGSTON ELECTRICAL
`ASSOCIATES, INC.
`1299 Waier 31er 16” Floor
`New Y'Ork, New York '1 0038'
`(212)513—7783
`FilcNo: 'SIC 1251 N14 MIR-
`
`' TO :-
`
`ARYE'; RUSTIC: 8; SASSOWER, PC
`Att'ornoys for Plaintiff
`20 VoSey‘ Stroet,.10‘h Floor
`New York, New York 10007-2947
`
`_
`JASON L. 'BECKERMAN, ESQ.
`ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN:& BENTLEY
`Attorney-s 1’01" Do'fendants'z’Tl1ird-‘Party Plaintiffs
`5.6 LEONARD LLC and. LEND-LEASE
`(US) CON-S'='fRUCTI"ION LMB-INC.
`'75 0 Third ' Avenue, €25“1 Floor
`New York, New. York. 10017.
`(646) 454-3247
`
`_
`_
`SARAH N1; ZIOLKOWSKL ESQ;
`MILBER MA KRIS FLQUSADIS &-S_'E'I.DEN,- LLP'
`Attorney-s for Second Third—Party Defendant
`PROFESSIONA L. RISK PLANNE-RS- INC.
`1000 Woodbury Road, Suite 4022
`WOOdbur-y, New York '1 1.?9?
`'(‘511-6). 712-4000.
`{DiSmrlssedfl'om action per ordw (fatalNOvember 28, 220126)
`
`20f 33
`
`

`

` [EILEDr NEW Yd'RK COUNTY CLERK 12/12 22016 209: 05 AM!
`:1.;_sm_.‘.1‘ DUE. NO. 186
`TNTCNT-UED .NT'ssca
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STA-TE OF NEW mm
`NEW YORK COUNTY
`
`TNDEX.N0. 15555_5_/2914_
`1"“. 1.109 ”2.0.16
`
`PRESENT:
`
`4...___....._..-_ «
`
`
`Jus rice
`
`index Number :_ 16556532014
`D‘AMICQ. BENEDICT
`'vs'.
`
`56 LEONARD LLG
`SEQUENCE NUMBER : 002
`SUMMARYJUDGMENT
`
`PA RT
`
`15."
`
`INDEX NO.
`
`.
`
`MOTION DATE
`
`MOTIOH_SEQ._NO.
`
`
`
`An9v.-afr_ing Aflidahi‘a -— Exhibiis'
`
`
`
`'a ;"l
`
`Replying Affidavits
`
`_
`
`___
`
`f.- “TE-(1"
`Upon the. foregoing papers, it is Ordered that this motion is.
`1.1211411.
`$11.1
`-
`Ci HILL“?
`1011. N m»
`
`i .I
`
`
`
`O‘JUSTICE
`
`OMS]:
`
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTTdchse-TsRES‘PEtfz-TEULLTREFERREDT.FGRTHEFOLLOWINGIRéAS
`
`
`
`1-. CHECK'ONE’;
`E'LICASE DISPOSED
`--2;
`.CNEGKA-s.AAPRUPRTATE-.........-..........-.-......;M0T|0N' is: if] GRANTED
`
`'3. CHECK 1F APPROPRIATE:
`
`1."in DE‘NiED
`[7.1.] SETTLE- ORDER
`
`T":NONFINAL DiSPOSiTION
`{:1 GRANTED IN PART
`5...? OTHER
`
`LJSUBMIT ORDER
`
`Iii-TDD- NOT POST
`
`{:1 FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT
`
`EEREFERENCE
`
`l of -31
`
`3 of 33
`
`

`

`'JPRFN COUR_“ OI l‘HE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNIY- OF‘ N-EW YORK: PART 47
`mmwuHSInflmwmnwvfi____SH;wm2nmk
`
`BENEDICT D’AMICO,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`wagaihst—
`
`56rLEONARD.LLC and LEND LEASE (USE
`CONSTRUCTION INC,r
`
` jefefidants.
`
`C2mfh__H-flw-nuuH_MHAS_IIIQHEMH__I-__ nnnnnn.X
`
`56_LEUNARD LLC and LEND LEASE_(Q5}
`CONSTRUCTION LMB INC.4
`
`IndEX'No. 155565/14
`
`Third-Party Riaifltiffs?
`
`«againstw'
`
`Third—Party INdeX
`ND. 595297/14
`
`LIVINGSTON ELECTRICAL ASSOCIATES;
`
`INC.,
`
`Third—Earty Defendaht.
`H;__W_““_W“MHTM“___S__2___"_HmmMM_SI_HWIIx
`
`Gedffrey D. Wright,‘J}:”
`
`RLCTTAmION RS REQUIRED BY C_PLR 2219 (a) OF THE PAPERS
`CONSIDERE_D IN THE REVIEW OF r1HIS;MOTION:
`
`PAPERS
`
`‘
`
`,
`
`NUMBERED
`
`55 56_
`-
`J PLAINTIFF’SNOTICE OF MOTION 002 AND .
`“‘AFFIDAVTE“IN SU?PO?T
`.__m_
`..W"WHWWWWthwmmmau VRMTIHWMW.WM
`
`PLAINTIFprngXHEBITs
`
`DEFENDANRS’ AND LIVINGSTON’S OPPOSITION
`AFFIRMATIONS
`'
`
`LIVINGSTONVS RRDLY
`
`DNFNNNANTS’ NOTINN-or NQNION 003 AND
`AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM
`
`58—??
`
`126, 128
`
`14a
`
`80, 81
`
`82
`
`i
`
`2 QEBI
`
`4 Of33
`
`

`

`DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBiTs
`
`PLAINTIFFHS AFFIRMETION TN OPPOSITION
`
`LIVINGSTON’S AFFIRMBTION IN_OPPQSITIQN'
`
`.
`
`LIVINGSTQNIEjEXHlaiws
`
`pLAINTIFF’S-KND'LIVINGSTON‘S REPLY
`AFFIRMATIONS
`
`DEFENDANTS‘ REPLY AFEiRMATiON TO THERDw
`FARTX DEFENDANT*S OPPOSITION
`
`
`LIVINGSTONFS NOTICE OF MOTION Goa AND.
`EFFEQEVTT 1N SUPPQRT
`
`LIVINGSTON’S EXHIBITS
`
`FLAINTIEFfis AFFIRMATION imzopposITlom
`
`DEFENDANTS’.AFFIRMATION IN.OPPOSITIQN
`
`DEFENDANTS’ AND FLATNTIFF?S REPLY
`AFFIRMATIONS
`
`83~102
`
`l22
`
`134
`
`135-135
`
`138. 150
`
`152
`
`103. 104
`
`105—116
`
`124
`
`12?
`
`130. 140
`
`UPON,’1’HE FOREGOING. CI‘IT-EJD. PAPERS,- THl-S DECISION ON THE}
`MOTIONS.
`IS? AS FOLLOW-S:
`"
`
`:MotiOns witfi'sequeh e nUmbers 002, 003 and QUfl'aie ‘
`abnsolidated,fiar'dispositimn-
`
`_This~agtion.arises put ¢f a construction sifieraCCident
`. INT“... E'hfit' ficcurred~0I1MD'Ja‘3"c:h'-2-?5", 20 .1 4””‘631‘.'56“Bednard"3trfiet“ifi” ..
`.._..'. ....._..,.
`.
`
`._...w. ..
`
`.,
`
`.._..._... -
`
`..
`
`.
`
`._ ..
`
`...._ .. ,. .. :
`
`Manhattan. where a flaw 56» br_57~stcry residential building_was
`being-ereCtEd.
`
`’
`
`In motion SEQUBnCe.number'002, plaintiff Benedict
`
`D‘Amicm moves. pursuant
`
`to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment in.his
`
`favdr-On his complaint. Defendants 56 Lfiofiard LLCIfSE) and Land
`
`Lease-{US} Construction LMB Inc. thfa Lénd=Lease (US)
`
`Construttion Inc.
`
`(LL)
`
`ttogether, defendants} mega,
`
`in motidn
`
`sequence'number 003, Ear summary judgment'dismissing the
`
`3
`
`(if.
`
`.33.
`
`5 Qf33
`
`

`

`complaint{ and for sUmmary'judgmenL in their faeor on their
`
`third—party complaint,
`
`In motion sequence number 004,
`
`third“
`
`-party defendaflt-LivingsLOH Eleotrioal Asfiooiatesk Eng.
`
`(LEE)
`
`-movesL pursuant
`
`to CPLR.3212,
`
`for summary judgment dismissing the
`
`.oomplaint and thirdfiparty complaint.
`
`As an_initial matter}-because plaintiff has not alleged
`
`any claim as against his employer, LEAr
`
`the part of LEA’S morion
`
`-whioh seeks summary judgment dismiseing plaintiff’s complaint as
`against it is denied.
`’
`
`Because the motions may.be.determinedjmore'COnciser by
`
`censidering the issuea,
`
`rather than deaiing with the motions one
`
`by one,
`
`the_court wilL non focus on-the motions.seréatim.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On-March-2l,
`20164 péaintiff? then a
`journeyman
`eleotrlcian.employed by.LEA, Nae working on.the BBCOHd floOr of
`
`the'buiiding whiIE'two coworkers¢ Amthonnydtale {NaLalEJIand
`'Donnie.Divone (Divone), WGEE working direCtJy above him on the
`third floor: Whom workers on one flee: perform their duties
`.
`" diféctly above. other worker-s on the floor b'e-Jgow--,_
`it i.s_,c-al‘-le_d
`“stackifig,”
`The thigd floor was made_upgof-3olid ooncgete, with
`_the exCEption of_four—inch4diameter holes, Call6d sleevee;
`The
`;sleeves penetrated the gonorete and were-proVided so that conduit
`‘00u1d be pasSed thrOugh:them from one floor_to another.
`1111 mall 5/
`he.
`'
`"flléeyee.;_.e_o_maimed“generate..._w.h..i.._cz,t1...v.I.1_121_g1.-_-.,_jt_o-_,..he.I..1:._<2_m.qiz.e;dm
`
`before the sleeve could.be used.& ano the Concrefie'Was.rem0vedf
`tho leeVes_were cowerediby orange protective caps;which could be
`fiemoved-in order to accommodate.the cendugt”
`Plaihtiff’s task that day was to install a distribution
`
`.boafid on the second fLOQr, while Natafie ahfi Divone installed a
`
`_puil box on the third fLoorg
`
`The puli box had to be moonted.oh
`
`pieces.gf metoL coiled.kindorf, ahd after the puTt box was
`
`mounted, plaintiff‘s ooworkers were.to :un two conduits froml
`
`'
`
`q of 31
`
`6 of 3.3
`
`

`

`undereeath the box,
`
`through the sleeVE, and into the distribution
`
`box on the second floqr below.
`
`.According to Natale,
`
`the cap for
`
`the sleeve was
`
`remOVed beEOre the pull hex was instej}ed.
`
`The kinderf at issue was plaCed Vertically agaiHSt a
`
`perpehdicuiar kindocf which had already been installed
`
`horieehtally:
`
`A bolt was placed thongh a hole in the.kind0rf and
`
`into-a spring nut
`
`(also KDQWD as a compression_eoupliegfi. Natale
`
`loosened the bolt 30 the: the kifiderf could be mOved out of the
`
`way- while he and D.i.vo_n'e drilled .Rmuntinq hole-s.
`
`l-l'owever, when
`
`Natale looSened the bolt,
`
`the spring-nut could not hold the
`
`kindorf, and a seveewfoet.pieee of kfndorf slipped off and fell
`through the sleeVe, hitting D‘Amjco on the.headn At the time,
`
`D’Amieo was.beetmofier,
`
`tightening a belt. Plaintiff suffered a
`
`broken skuil and_has required surgery. ThezaCcident was
`
`'uhwitneSSed;
`
`56 Was
`
`the omner of the site,
`
`LL was the constrUction
`
`'maeager. Christopher Corbo (Cebbo) was LL’s MEfi'fMeChamical,
`'Eleotrieal, Plumbing) Superinrehdeet afid prejeet manager.
`He
`.eoordinated these trades, and met'with the fofiemen of each-of his
`trades daily;
`3059:? Poweli was LL’s health and safety
`;supervieor,
`He attested that the area undef.an"epen sleeve was
`considered an “ageleeion zone” where eo-one should have been
`
`working~
`LL hired.LEA.as the electrical contractor-fer the
`,TP-ee.jfie‘eft- _ The ewe-9.046.
`its._.;.ne'eeeese1:9fi;.i..i_ei.eel.,inelRee-err,9.19.9,fi1reeele......1
`fire alarm, eeeurity and telecommunicatiohs work, Plaintiff‘s.
`
`"
`
`Supervisorrwes foreman Brandon Navarro (NaVarrOJ.
`
`THE ELEADINGS
`sounding
`The'COmplaint alIEQee foo? Causes ef action,
`in commontlaw negligence and_violations'ef Labor Law §§ 200, 240
`
`{1) and 241 {6}. Defendants” answer posee_only affirmative
`
`defenses, without addreSsing any particular allegations.
`
`LEA“5
`
`anewer to the eomplainL asserts-one cross claim against
`
`Lf=
`
`QT
`
`3 J.
`
`7 of 33
`
`

`

`defendaflts for'iuiL common—law.indemnitication.
`
`Defendants/third—party plaintiffs” thirdwparty
`
`Complaint brings five causes of action[ eounding in contributiqn,
`
`'GommOn law and-contractual
`
`ifidemnifieation and breach'of
`
`contract.
`
`LEA’S third—party answer asserts a counterclaim fior
`
`full commonHlaw indemnificatiem.
`
`Plaintiff-"s“ whim Supplemental. Bill 'of Particulars
`
`(8/21X15} alleges that defendants violated Tndustrial Code-{22
`
`NYCRR Part 231 §.23+l.7 iaj {1),
`
`D IJS CUS S ION
`
`Summany Judgment Standard
`
`“Since
`
`summary'judgment
`
`is the equivalent Of a trial
`
`.” t05trov’v ROébruch; 91 ADEd 147,-152 [lst_Dep£ 20l2}}, and
`
`is a “draStie remedy” {fiebbeh v City Of New Yerkg 113.AD3d'512f
`512 {let Dept_2014}),
`the proponent Qf a.sqmma:y judgment.metion
`“is required'to dembfieerate that there are no
`
`material
`
`issues of fact_in dispute and that
`
`.he is ewbitled to jfidgment and dismissal es_a
`-matter-0f lewJ' Only when this-burden is met}
`
`is thesbpposmg parity. required to. submit
`
`.proof in admiSSible form sufficient to.create
`a question of fact requiring a frial
`
`{intexnal.Citatiohe‘omittedlf
`
`(Pok‘oik v Pokoi.k--,
`
`1.1-5 Arm-d 42.8,
`
`4233 ["lst {fiepir 2034-3)...
`
`.“In
`
`deciding the.motionk the-court wiil draw all reasonable
`
`the movifig payty
`Ef
`inferences-1n favor-of the nOanVing party)
`'fails to make a prime fecie showing of entitlement
`to summary
`
`jgdgment, {however,1 its motion mast be denied {internal
`
`citaLions emittedj” (Fayglie v East W; Manhattan Portfolio LVPQ
`
`198 £D3d 476, 4?8+4?9.[13L Dept 2013JJ. However, “ioinee this
`
`showing is made}
`
`the burdefl shiffis £0=the opposing party t6
`
`5 of m
`
`a of 33
`
`

`

`produce.evidontiary proof in édmisoible form ouoiitleni to
`
`establish tfie existence-0t triabie zfiruc.of fact“ (Melendez V
`
`Parkchefiter Modi Sorvs., P;C.,'76 RD3d 927} 9?? [lat flépt 2010]];
`
`“The oomrt’o Ionction.on a motion £om summary judgment
`
`is merely
`
`LOHthérmihe if afiy triable isaues EXiS t, not
`
`to'determine the
`
`merits of any-such issues L
`
`‘
`
`.“ (Meridian Mgt. Corp.
`
`V Cristi
`
`Cleaning serv: Corp.,
`
`7U=HDBd SOB; 510—511 {lat Dept 2010]).
`
`Labor Law-§'240 {1)
`
`in'portihoht part:
`Labor Law'§ 240 {1) provides;
`“All contractors and.owner5 and thgdr agents
`
`in the erectioh; demolition,
`
`repairing,
`
`altering,'painting{ cleahing or pointing ofi a
`
`'building'or structure-shall fiurnish or erect,
`or Cause;to be furhishEd'or erected for'the
`
`-performanpe'of such labor, soafto1ding,
`
`hoists? stays,
`
`ladders, SlingS, hangers,
`
`.blOCks,-pulleyST bracesf
`
`irons,-r09€s,
`
`and
`
`other dflvices which shall be Bostonstruoted,
`placed and operated-as to give proper
`
`protoction to a parson so'gmployed,"
`
`?he Statute_ “imposeS‘on owner_s o.r general _contraotors and thleir
`agents a nondelegable duty,-and.-absol-ute.lJ_abi1ity for Jnjurlos
`mprOX1matelymCausedmbymtheofallure.to_. pIOV1dE.apprWoptiatemsaietyojmmL—Lw
`
`.devices to workers-who-are-subiect to elevationwrelated<risks”
`{Saint v Syra'c’use SUppiy ca, 2-5 N=Y3d 117,_
`1214
`[2015]).
`I Uhder
`bot-h sections 2220'
`(1.) and 2.41 .(6').'_,
`the. duty j.s.-i'mpesed
`“regardless of the absence-of oomtrol,-supervisiom, or direotion
`
`of the work” {Romero v J & S Simcha, Inc.;'39.AD3d 838, 839 [2d
`
`_}ept 260?]}r
`
`“To establish_liability under Lahor'taw'§ 240 (L){
`
`3 PiaiflLiff must demongtrate both that
`
`the statute wao violated
`
`and that
`
`the violation was a proximate Causezof ihjury;
`
`the mere
`
`7' of 311
`
`9 of 33
`
`

`

`occurrence of.an.accidenk does not Estabiish a statutoxy
`
`violationV'fpeRosa v Bowis Lend Leaae LMB,
`
`Inc-fl 96.n03d'652, 659
`
`[15k Dept 2012]). Morebver¢ even'if it is found‘that a
`
`plaintiff’s negligence contributed to his injuriesr “cantribuLer
`negligence will_not eXOnexate a defendant whb has violated the
`
`Statute and proximately cansed a plaihtiff”s injury" {Blaké'v
`
`.Neighbarhood Hons. Serve
`
`'of N.YL City,
`
`1 NYEd-ZSO; 286 l2003];
`
`see aiao.Dias v City_of NEW Ybrk, 110 Afifid'577, 578 [lat Dept
`
`2013i {“Comparative-fiegligence .
`(1)"jkt
`
`.
`
`v is not a defenfie under § 240
`
`“fTihe singie decisive question [in determining Laban
`
`Law $.240 {i} liability] is whether pfiaintiff’s injuries were the
`
`direct consquence Q£:a failure.to provide &quuate pratection
`against a.fisk ariSing rEOm.anhysically sighifiicant eleVatioh
`
`diffexential“ (Rflnner v Néw_yark Steak fixahg, Wharf
`
`13 NY3d-599}
`
`-603
`
`[2009]},
`Plaintiff'posits that he is entitléd to summary
`
`judgment on hgs section 240 {1) claim becaUSe-the kindarf fell
`through an unproteated'sleeVE aha Ehé ziSk-of something falling
`through an unprotected opening was erQsééab1e.
`‘_
`‘
`I
`Initially,
`thé court notes that 56 is the owner oi £he
`_prcperty.
`'As Such, it has the-hendgleg&blé duty to profiidé
`swapkers with a safe_fiiaée to work. HIE it.fails.in.£his duty, it.:
`may: he held.__"3.3:.-c.a::_j._flo,us;1y 1;:gmie,iu'ndér Labor Law: §.§.’L’2.4.0(1)and2r11
`
`{6} “notwithstanding the absence of actual supétvisjdn 0r Control
`
`over the work? (HACKSy.V Perry & Sons; 223 AD2d 799, 300 [3d Dept
`1996]}.
`
`In addition, LL, a§.cofistruétion.manager} may be held
`
`liabie as a geheral centraCtor or statutory agent of 56.under
`
`gections-240 {1) and'le (6}
`
`if it had been-delegated “the
`
`authority to supervise and conLrQI
`the work” {Bennett v Hucke,
`131 An3d'993, 994 {2d Dept 2015}, affd 28 NY3d 964 {2016}).
`“A
`
`10 pf 33
`
`

`

`party is deemed to be ah.aqant of an'awmar a: gcnaral aofitractor
`
`under the'Labor Law when it has supervisary controfi'and authority
`
`ovar'the work being'done where alpiaifit ff 33 in}nréa [interna1
`
`quotation marka and citations omitted]“ (id. at 995; Sam alaa
`
`Walls v Turner Constr; CO¢,.4 NY3d 861, 863m864 [2005]
`
`chnstruction manager bald liable as a_s£atutory agEht “where the
`
`manager had_fihe abiliLy-Lo conLrQl the acLiviLy which brought
`
`;about
`
`the injury”]J.
`
`The.CCnatruction-Management.Agreement between 56 and LL
`{56/LL Agreement) Specifically identifies-56 as the owner and LL
`1. Va." 'nJ- A}.
`LLCJLLUJ. .
`
`as the Conftruction manager, not as the g5uc;al-Ccn
`
`Article 3; settion 341 of the Bfi/LL Agreamant I“Construction
`
`Management and Ganeral Contxacting Services”) provides:
`
`“The canstruction Manage: ahall previde all
`
`administration? management, accaunting,
`
`purchasing, adhedUling, budgeting, cost ahd
`
`quantity estiwrzaLfiing.f coordination, dUCument
`
`archifial, regortihq, afld.other services
`necessary Lb.fulfii its ObligaLiDHS'under
`this Agréament
`
`i”...
`. The“ 7. Construct ' 0}? Dimmer ....Sh.a.l.l ..-.si.;i:;éa.t.i.y..
`retain all SubcontraCLOIS aha-shall enSure
`
`that the Work is fully, properly;
`
`afid
`
`completely pérformed in accordance with-the
`
`Constructipn Documents'.".
`
`.
`
`. Cofiatructibn
`
`Manager aha}; provide ali aarvicea,‘bn5iness
`
`administration and superviaifln, necessary
`
`for,_or incidental
`
`to} the prosacution and
`
`Final Completinn-of the Mark in Lhe-mast
`
`9 of 31
`
`ll-of 33
`
`

`

`expeditimus and ecdnomicai manner
`
`{If
`
`(56/LL Agreement, §§.3.1J1 and 3n1.3-at 22+23).
`
`Section 3;2, “Construction Means-and Methods,”
`
`prOVidefif
`
`in.rélévant part:
`
`“The.CQnstruction Manager and its
`
`SubconLractors and theix suppliers and
`
`materialman shall be soleiy responsible.fo:r
`
`{3)
`
`their Construction means, methoda, and
`
`'techniques;
`
`‘— H 'r.i..
`
`the establishment-and
`(b)
`
`L
`.1
`Nu
`if)
`
`management. =31“
`
`a .‘tfi’Et-‘f Prefix-.2311". 1&3: {rm
`
`Work; {a} all procedures and procauLiong
`
`neCfissary to +0mply'with the Safety Program,
`
`OSHA and all othar Applicable Laws; and (d)
`
`carrying out
`
`the Work in acCordance hith the
`
`Contract Documents,
`
`“Npthing herein is intendéd to preclude thg
`Comatfuction.wéh§gef from deieqating
`‘
`I
`responsibility and control over construction
`
`techniqfleSL.sequEnces and:
`means, methoda,
`
`.Pfi?6¢dgréé\<‘@%afi$:and“metf d“
`fl to,
`Subuontyacfcfg'péfformihg*porfibfig of the
`Work put1 id all evenzsl
`remain {sicj fully
`IESanSibie t6 aner for all Means and
`Methods including-safety implementatidn and
`safety functions”
`
`{id;r §-3,2;1 at 24}.
`
`While the fié/LL Agreement sets-cut LL?$ supervisory
`
`1.0
`
`013
`
`3'1
`
`12 'O'f 3-3
`
`

`

`autherity eye;
`
`the project ae_e wheieh theta ie_n03htnq in the
`
`Agreement or in the eVidence betere the edutt
`
`that
`
`indicates that
`
`LL had eupervisiofi er Centrol over piaintiff or his wdrk,
`
`Rather? it is uncontested that plaintiff was directed=salely by
`
`his-LtA supervisor,
`
`foreman Newerfd. whys,
`
`it-cannOt-be said
`
`that LL eeted either 33.3 genera; centtactor or as an agent of S6
`
`at
`
`the Site, and is;
`
`thereforef'not liable to the'filaihtiff ufider
`
`Labor Law §§ 240 {l} and Zdi
`(6).
`Defendants maintain that LEA; not defendants, caused
`
`n} O
`3"
`_Cident by Stacking its workers and by failing to replace
`t e
`5' ) 5
`4..L.
`; yrotectixp cap ever the sleeve; Accerding to attendantet
`
`,5
`
`p1aifitiff‘s Coworkere were the sole Droximate cause.of the
`
`aCcidEEt_
`
`AS.SUflh+ defendants Claim that there was no statutory
`
`violation or liability on.their part.
`
`“It does not avail
`
`[defehdents]
`
`that
`
`the accifieht may
`
`have been-caused by the negligence efi a_comworker any more than
`
`it would avail
`
`them had the aCLiofl beefl.eaUSed by {he negligenCe
`
`ADRd 8?,
`of plaintifif'himeelf” (R033 v many €0.9’272
`EOOQII.
`The “[eElleged negligence.e£ a commorker
`.
`
`87 {lst Dept
`.
`inUO
`
`.
`
`-defehee to tgabilityf {Qalzler V'New Yerk_Te1. Get, 192 AD2d
`1164, 1105 {ch'beét 19931;_but;seé Bernel v bity of New yorqui
`
`{when-a plaintiffi fell
`21? AD2d'568, 568~69 {2d Dept 1995]
`beteUSE'a cowerker-ettempted to'lowerihimsby means Of a HifLQr‘“a_
`.. 9999099999 fact-119991" mightcon clude that 999‘ 99901” ke-r‘ 899991999 '
`
`was the sole prekimate cause of'the piaihtiff‘e injuries~or-that
`
`._
`
`the coworker’s'conduCt constituted an-unforeseeable supefeeding,
`
`intervening aet”]).
`
`.As
`
`the First Department has spoken on the.iesue of
`
`whether a COWorker’S'negfligence can previde.a defense againSfi a
`
`plaihtiff's section 240 (L) cjaim, this ccurt muet'conelude that
`the actions Of LEA‘e-cher empleyGES provide no defense-t0“56 or
`LEA’S possible etatutery liability”
`
`10
`
`.H. (it 31
`
`13_of 33
`
`

`

`The parties fiiSaQfiee-mfi whether plaintifii was wearing
`
`his hard hat when he was struck by'the kindari.
`
`.Defehdants
`
`assert that D*Amico was ndt Wearing his hat because? aftei the
`
`accident,.the exterior of the-hat showed no dant Or Scratch.
`
`Regarding to defendants’ neurolegical expert,
`
`the kindorf’s.point
`
`of impact on D’Amicu’fl cranium was plaintiff’s fight parietal
`
`bane- Defendantsh not their'expert, maintain that had plaifitiff
`
`"been'Wearing his hard hat,
`
`the right pariEEal home would have
`
`beEh Covered; Alteznatively; deféndants cantehd that,
`
`ifi
`
`indeed, plaintiif was wearing his hard'hat} he was.wearing it
`
`backwazfifi-s.
`
`'Ffldj..Iji.-i.ff
`
`:d'L..L-:;£L-9L:5 Uta-13L 1m: was v‘re'c'ijtiji'ag -'}1i.::i hand hat
`
`-and-that Lhe pron that he was is the bioed on the inside of it.
`
`Wheiher D’Amibw Wore his-hard hat or not is df'no
`
`moment.
`
`Even ii pLaintiff was not wearing a hard hat at the-time
`
`0f the accidentr that could'not have been the sole prpximate
`
`cause of the accidEBt, because he was.3truck'by.a piece of
`
`kindqrf that fell-thraugh‘an unprotected sleeve (see e,g;
`
`Dadndreaj V ABC Carpet & Heme, 93.AD3d 487, 488 [lat Dept 2012]}.
`
`Moreover, “‘Ia1.hard'hat.is hot the tYpE'of safety deVica I
`enumerated_ifi Labor Law §y2403{l} tp.bé'c0nstructedg placed and
`
`operated, so as to give.prop9r fitotection from éXtraOIdinaxy
`
`elevatiQn—related risks to a CONSEKUCEiOfi worker’
`
`[Citation
`
`omittedj":£Memcado v Caithness Long Is. LLCfi=lO4:AD3d-S?6; 57?
`_“wilfifigfigfifiQ2913132§§E-aié9;3inghmvhflfi15;;fléififiaityJCQppmfi_2§imfiuzfig;m_flLw.WJMJ
`2115.,
`21.6:
`[1512- Dept. 2002.}
`['S'ameH.
`‘.I'-hL;-é, even 1.}: plaintiff failed
`
`to wear a hardfhati he was npt neglecting'to take advantage pf a
`
`required saféty dgvicem In anyyavefit;
`
`a plaintiffrs
`
`“contributory negligence f
`
`.
`
`.
`
`is not a defense to a Labor Law §
`
`240 {_1)_ claim“ (Gnama'n v .1963 Rye-r Ream; Co):_p.,
`
`12'? mm- 454',
`
`455 {lat Dept 2015]), and defendants’
`
`relianCe on plaintiff’s
`
`.alleQed failure to wear his hard hat
`
`is unavailinq.
`
`“in order [c.PreVflil an summafiVIEUdgment in a
`
`l2 Of 31
`
`1430f 33
`
`

`

`.eectinm ?40 (3}
`
`‘f:aLi.e 0““{E'
`
`(1:3e Lht
`
`ifijUred workmr'muwt demoneLraLe the existence
`
`QfLa hazard contempiared under that statute
`
`and the failure Le use, or the inadequacy of:
`
`a Safety device ofi Lhe kind enumerated
`
`therein, Essentially,
`
`the plaintiff mast
`
`dEmOLSLLaLe that at
`
`the time the Object fell,
`
`it either was being-heieted'er-seeuredfi Ur'
`
`regaired Securing for the purposes of the
`
`'undertakihg [internal ghetation marks and
`-
`"
`.
`fr?
`=31Let10ns omiLtLgL]
`
`{Seales v Trident-Spruetura}'Cerp;, £42 AD3d 1153{ 1156 [2d bopt
`2Gi51L
`“In additienq the plflimtiff must-show that-the bbjéCt
`fell
`.
`. beCaUSe of the absence or
`inadequacy ef a-safety
`
`.
`
`device-of the kind efiumerated Le the statute {internal quotation
`marks ahd eitaLion omitted?” tPazmino V 41~50 78th St. Cerp.k 139
`333d 1029, 1030 de Dept 281633;
`
`LEA is quiLe-correct in-Lsserting that
`
`“net_efiery_eb4éct
`that_falls en a-werkertj
`giges rise Le the‘exfiraerdinary protections
`
`’Of Labor Law § 24OJII}. Rather,
`
`liability is
`
`_eentin_geht upon the- FXlStCDCe Of a ha-zard
`
`. Gonfiemplatedin. utctlon2f13 .§._1J_._:3nd.U25?“
`
`a
`failure t-o -ueeL or the inadequacy Of:
`safety device 0f the kind enumerated therein”
`
`{Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc , 96'NY2Q2259, 26? [2001}?
`LEE is aleggcerrect in maintaining that
`the failure of
`
`the spring“nutfcempgeeeioh coupiing does noL euppqrt a section
`
`is.not a
`f
`,
`{1) claim.beeeu5e a cenprL“b30h coupling L
`2&0
`eaEeLy device ‘COILSLLucLeeg pleaed and operated as to give.proper
`
`13 as 31
`
`15 Of 33
`
`

`

`protectien‘ Exam the faixing” kinderfi
`
`(Hebrizi v 1095 ave: ef'the
`
`.Am5;x L.L-C}, 22 NY3d 658; 563 [201fl1)t
`
`Ifl addition} the kindorf
`
`“was [noti'being hoisted er secured{ or required securing for Lhe
`
`perposes Gf the undertaking [internal quotation marKS'and
`
`citations ominted]” (id. at 662w663}; 30 its fall was not the
`
`type of hazard-envisioned by the Legislafiure-in-framing.the
`
`preteciidns of Sectioh 249 (i)
`
`{see e.g. Shaheeh'v Huebermfireuer
`
`[“The rope that fell
`fiD3d ?6£, 762ilfith Dept 200%}
`4
`Cbnstr. Co;,
`on decedefit Was noL an object being heisLedaor-a loed Lhat
`
`reguired Securing it She time it fell} and thus seetion 240 (1}
`
`does fiOI_appiy j}.
`
`The part of dEfendahts’ motion which seeks summary
`
`judgment dismissing plaintiff’S'LabOr Law § 240 {l} claim_is
`
`.granted, and the_part of plaintiff’s'motion which-seeks summary
`
`judgment:
`
`in his favor Cm.- u-hi-s- claim 'is denied.
`
`Labor. Law §- 2'41 ('6)-
`
`Laber Law § 241 {61 provides;
`
`“All contracters and owner52and their agefite,
`
`,
`
`when CQfiBttuctinanr'demolishing
`
`'buildings or deinq_aey excavating in
`:c-ojnnectijoe {harm-uh, shall "comply with the
`fiollowing réquirementg:
`9r
`‘ér
`
`a}
`
`excavation-Dr deMelition work-is being
`
`performed shall be so construeted, Shored,
`
`eqeipped,.gUafded, arranged, operated and
`cohducted-as to previde reasonable an&
`adequate protectien and safety to the persons
`
`emplOyed=thereih or lawfully frequenting such
`
`placcfm .The CQmmissiener may make.ruies LO'
`
`-carry into effect the provisions of this
`
`13
`
`1n 01 31
`
`lfi-of 33
`
`

`

`subdiviaion, and the owners-andffiontragtors
`
`and their agents for Such work,
`
`.
`
`;
`
`. shall
`
`comply therewith.“
`
`“Labor Law §'241 (6)
`
`imooogs a nondelegable'duty on-ownerst
`
`cofltractors,.and their agents ;
`
`.
`
`.
`
`t Pursflaot to that duty:
`
`ownero, contraotorsl and their agénts mustiCOmply With these
`
`provtstns of the Industrial Code that set torth specific
`
`requiremEHts Or standards [internal quotation marks ahd citation
`
`omittedl” {Torres v City‘of Now York,
`
`127 RD3d¥1163¢ ll66-[2d
`
`Dépt 2UlSJJ. Liability under this statute may-be imposed
`“regardless of-thaab5ence-oi control; soperviSion or ditootion
`
`of the work Ecitationuomittadi” fMortOn v State of New=York}
`
`15
`
`NY3d 50, 54
`
`[2010})fl However, “Itihe-owner or Contractor may
`
`raise-any valid defEHSe to-the impdéitidn-of-Vioarious liability
`
`under Labor haw § 241 (6),
`
`including-canttibutoty and comparative
`
`negligence” {Catarina V State of.N¢w York,
`
`55 AD3d 467, 468 ilst
`
`Dept RUUBIJt
`
`_
`
`New*%orkrs Industrial Code-is found at 12 NYCRR Part
`The Industrial cade.pr0v15ipn relied upon'must be
`23.
`Vapplioabiej as well'as specific and.ooncrete (vantimiglia V
`Thatch; fiipley &'CoL, LLC, 96 AD3d 1043,
`i047 [2d Dept 29121);
`“TO’establish a claim under-the-Statfite;
`a plaintiff must Show
`_thflimgoatggiii9tmaéptigafilgtlngyStxiglwQégémtfigfllgtigflmfigtt;_M“mom“wmfloomim“l
`violated Ema that the violation caused the oompLaineduof injpry”t
`(Cappobianca v Skanska US Bldg.
`Inc ,-99 AD3d 139? 146 fist Dept‘
`20121)._
`I
`
`ID’AmiCoFs sole baSis for his Seotion 241 {6} claim is
`
`an alieqed violation'of indfistrial Code'§ 23ft»? {a}
`
`{1}.
`
`Section 23‘1.? {a}
`
`{1) provideog
`
`“Sectibn 23-1.7. Protection from geneial
`
`hazards
`
`lfi'of 3;
`
`17 of.33
`
`

`

`'“iaj'Ovdrfioad Hazards,
`
`“(1) Every place where persohs are required
`
`:to-work Or.pass that is fiermally expOsed to
`
`flailing material or'ubjegts shall be_pfqvided
`
`With suitablé overhéad pfotectifih;
`
`Such
`
`overhead pxotection shall consist Cf tightly
`
`laid souhd-planks.at léast two inChQS thick
`
`full gize,
`
`tightly laid three~quart9r inch
`
`exterior grade glymogd or other material'of
`
`equivalent StVEHgthu
`
`'Such OVSrhéad
`
`protection shall be provided with a
`
`support;hg strUCture Capable of sfippcrting a
`
`lflading.of 100 pouhds per square foot."
`
`“As plainly epreSSEd; this regulation Only applies to places
`nowmally exposed to fallifig material 0r objects.
`Thfis, whexe an
`
`object UhEXpéctedly falls on.a worker in an.érea-not normaLlM
`
`the regulatiOn'does nOt apply” (Backley-
`eXpoged to Suqh haiards,
`y Calumbia Grammar
`& Prgparafpry, £4 HU3d 2634.2?1 [lst Dept
`200?]};
`iSection'23w1.7 (a)
`(l) sets-forth “specific standaxds
`
`for planking required fior.0verhead protespipn_at wOrk-placas,
`
`suffdler‘t Losugtdna cauaecf act-w“ underLaborLaw§241 _
`
`-{6'J ”
`
`{.Zer‘vos. y City. of New 'Y-o-rk,__ 8. mad 4‘7'3,
`
`.480
`
`{-2.531 Dept 2.004] )..
`
`'However,
`
`the ciLed provgsion “requiriesf protective maasUres to
`
`guard against falling objects assaciated with overhead.activity
`
`zand-hazards arising-in connection.with the.use of concrete fOIms
`
`and shoring? {Pavia u Weatherby.fiaflstr, Cappg, 26 ADBd 165, 166
`
`[Est DepL 20G6jlm
`
`Alth0ugh plaintiff vigorflusly_argnas that seetion.23~
`
`1.? (3}
`
`LE} applies} because the area under open sleeves is
`
`15
`
`16sqf 31
`
`18 pf 33
`
`

`

`considered an “exciusion.zone” whefie'nb'ene is Supposed'to Work,
`
`and that Lhe wfidlé reasoh for oovoring exposed sfieeve31is thaL
`
`things might {all
`
`through themo his assertidns are unavailing.
`
`The settion-dOES'not'apply hererbeoause the protection-required
`
`to provont
`
`injury in an area “mermallyTéxpdSQd-to:fialling
`
`'material Or objecis” is “tightly laid sound plahks-at least two
`inches thick full size{ tightiy laid threeflquarter-inch exterior
`
`grade plywood or other material'of equivaléht'strehgth.
`
`SUCh
`
`overhead protection Shall.be provided with a supporting structure
`
`capable of supporting a loading of 100 pounds per SQuare-foot”
`{12 NYCRR723“1.7 Ea; {1}).
`Such protection would certaihly'be
`overkill for the-danggr thatlmight be pooeoeby an exposgd f0ur—
`inch»widb hole, and would havé made the task of-rfinning cabLe
`through-tho sleeve impossible.
`
`The partion of plaifitiff’s motion which seeks summary
`
`fiudgmenh in his Eauor on.his section 24l
`
`{5} Claim is“denied, and
`
`the portiUfi of defendants"motiofl which seekg summary judgment
`
`dismissing this claim is granied.
`
`.Labor Law'§ 200 and Gammon—Law-Negligenoe
`
`io relevant part;
`'Labor Law §V2QO (1) prevides,
`“All placos to which this Chapter applioa
`shall be so constructed} equipped, érgénged,
`operated and oomddoted2as'to_provide
`_ .. reabonablepfipfir a @Efiéfiiéfié .2929,t.s2_r2_-i; i99___.:pt_.©m_.§h@m
`lifiééo health and.§afety of_§li pefsons
`employed therein-or lawfully frequenting Such
`
`places. All machinery; equipment, and
`dévices in soch_plaoes Shall be SO'placodf
`
`operated, goaxded} and iighted as to proVidé
`
`reasonable and adequate protection to;a]1
`
`such.porsons. The'board may make rules to
`
`carry into effect nhe provisions of this
`
`l6
`
`1? or 31
`
`l9 oi 33
`
`

`

`:3 (9.633%;
`
`.1. on _. ""
`
`“Labor Law § ZOO is a cgdification-bf the-Common~law
`
`duty impGSEd on owhesrsi contractorfir-and their agents to previde
`
`wgrkers with-a safe pLaCe to work” (Marque? V'L & M Dev.
`
`Partners,
`
`Inc.,_141_A03d 694,-698 {2d Dept 201611.
`
`“Claims'for
`
`persohal
`
`injury under the statute and the common law {all
`
`into
`
`two brdad oategafics:
`
`thOSe arising from an alleged defeCt or
`
`.dahgefous cpnditign existing on the premises and those axising
`
`from the manner'in'WhiCh the mark was performed“ {Cappabianca v
`.-
`.
`=-~. 1.1
`-..,.
`n-r-x
`.
`_
`-n
`.1
`11 n
`1
`.1
`'v
`........
`n‘n n1 \
`._
`.Ufifi u¢ugy imp];
`vU-Aflad 133, LHJ"¢H§
`[Ebb DwyL AUlajj.
`
`Ska .1‘3 ska-2a
`
`This particular matter.’nvolves an injury that arose out of the
`
`meahs and methods used tO-accbmplish the work.
`
`“‘Where-a plaintiff’s claims implicate the mEans and
`
`methOds of the work, an owner or a cqntractor'will not be held
`
`liable under Labor Law § 200 uhlegs it had the authority to
`
`supervise or-contnql the pgrfprmance of the work’
`
`[Citation
`
`omittedj“ {Niewojt v Nikko Constrh C9rp., 133 Anad'lbzfi, 1025 {2d
`Dapt.2016jj,- Liability_under‘59cti0n 200 and commdnwiaw
`
`figqligence will net attafih unless a deféndamt “‘bear5.the
`reflpofisibility for thé manner
`in which the_woék is pérformed’
`{citation bmittedl” {marquez,1141.AD3d-at 698f.
`“General
`supenvisiofi" dues not suffice t0 impose liability'under section,
`”EEOmér;pommhntlawmdagiigenfiawLseefiewgm.Moratu_3kywfiifia”pigtfiibT..L-...H.-f
`carpi, 126_Ap3d 593, 594 {1st Dept.20l5]
`ihm‘liability withbut
`“*the authority to coht 01 the activity bringing_about
`the
`
`injury’ {Citation omittedi”];'Gbnzalez v Magestic Fine custom.
`flbme, 115_A93d ?96, 797 12d Dept 20141 {checking the progress-of
`Ehfi wgrk is “general supervision”}; Pitchione v Smeet Constr.
`
`Carp., 60 AD3d 5&0. 513 [th'Dept 2009} {walking the Site to
`.mcnitur_compfliance with specifications is general supervisienji.
`1t
`i5 uficontested that_56-providefl no.5upexvision or
`
`1?
`
`”ll-.8 Of 31
`
`_20 of 33
`
`
`
`

`

`Contfiol over plaintiff at his wCrk.
`
`In additioh, LL was neither
`
`thC general contracipr nor an agent of 56, and,
`
`therefore,
`
`is
`
`also not
`
`liable undar section 200 and Commohalaw negiigence (see:
`
`9.9..Dony-V Freepbrt Union Free-Schoal Dist
`
`,
`
`llS-ADBC 90?, 908
`
`{QC Dept'201d] {“as a ConstructiCC manager, which had not been
`
`delegated the authority and dUCieS of a general Contractor-and
`
`which did not funCLiCn-as an agent-of Lhe'OWHCf; it was hat a
`
`contractor responsible for-Lhe‘plainLiff’s_safeLy”}J.
`
`Thus,
`
`the-part Cf-defendaDCSW motion which SCeks
`
`summary judgment dis