In a decision dated December 21, 2016, Justice Thomas P. Aliotta granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint and all cross-claims as to our client, Delric Construction Co., Inc. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when he fell from a wooden plank that extended over a ventilation shaft on the sixth floor of the Staten Island Courthouse under construction. In granting the motion, the Court held that our client was not an agent of the owner and was not otherwise negligent. Delric did not have the authority to supervise, direct or control the plaintiff’s work. Furthermore, Delric had no safety or maintenance obligations on the sixth floor and more specifically in or around the shaft. In addition, the Court found that Delric owed no contractual indemnity, in whole or in part, to any of the defendants because the work on the sixth floor at the time of the accident was being performed for a separate prime contractor and arose from no work on the part of Delric or its subcontractors.
McDonough v. Delric Construction Co., Inc., et al., Index No. 150892/2013 (Richmond Co. Sup. Ct., December 21, 2016)
In a decision dated October 28, 2016, Justice Robert l. Nahman granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint and all cross-claims as to our client, Paragon Building Restoration, LLC. In the complaint, the plaintiff brought causes of action against our client, the roofing contractor, for common law negligence alleging that he tripped on a piece of cardboard which was placed inside the supermarket to sop up water leaking from the ceiling. In granting the motion, the Court held that our client was free from negligence and did not owe indemnity to the owner of the building because the leak did not arise out of its work.
Ibis-Blake v. Food City, et al., Index No. 80/2012 (Queens County Sup. Ct., Oct. 28, 2016)
In a decision dated August 18, 2016, Justice Marguerite A. Grays granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint against our client, a joint venture consisting of Slattery Skanska, Inc., John P. Picone, Inc., James McCullagh Co., Inc., Picone/McCullagh Joint Venture and Perini Building Company, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiff brought causes of action against the joint venture for common law negligence and pursuant to Labor Law §§200 and 241(6). The plaintiff, a New York City Department of Environmental Protection employee, sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell on ice while entering a building at the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Brooklyn, New York. In granting the motion, the Court held that because the plaintiff was not employed for the purpose of performing construction or repairs, he was not a member of a class protected by Labor Law §§200 and 241(6). In dismissing the common law negligence claim, the Court held that the defendant joint venture owed no duty of care to the plaintiff because he was not a third-party beneficiary to the contract between the joint venture and the NYCDEP.
Heavey v. A.J. Pegno Construction Corp., et al., Index No. 24910/2011 (Queens County Sup. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016)
In a decision dated August 10, 2016, Justice Michael D. Stallman denied the motion of the petitioners seeking leave to file late notices of claim against our clients, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metropolitan Transportation Authority Capital Construction Company, New York City Transit Authority, Long Island Railroad and the City of New York. The petitioner sought damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained during construction on the East Side Access Project. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that he was standing on a mantrip that came to a complete stop at or about East 55th Street inside the East Side Access Tunnel when a locomotive rear-ended the mantrip, causing the petitioner’s body to be jolted from one side to the other. In denying the petitioners’ motion, the Court held that the petitioners did not set forth a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim, nor did they demonstrate that the respondents acquired actual notice of the essential facts of their claim within 90 days of the accident. Moreover, the Court noted that, even if one of the respondents had acquired actual notice, such knowledge could not have been imputed to each of the other respondents, which are distinct and separate entities from one another.
Rodriguez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, et al., Index No. 162629/2015 (New York Co. Sup. Ct., Aug. 10, 2016).
In a decision dated June 17, 2016, Justice Mitchell J. Danziger granted the summary judgment motion of our client, the New York City School Construction Authority, dismissing the second-third party plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when he fell down a flight of exterior stairs on the Webster Avenue side of PS 85 in the Bronx. The second-third party plaintiff, Temco Service Industries, Inc., commenced an action against the SCA for contribution and common law indemnification. Specifically, Temco claimed that the SCA commissioned significant structural work at PS 85 at or around the time of the accident, which led to the plaintiff’s accident. In dismissing the second third-party complaint, the Court found that the SCA submitted sufficient evidence in admissible form indicating that the scope of the work performed by the SCA did not extend to the stairwell where the plaintiff’s accident occurred. Accordingly, the SCA did not owe the plaintiff any duty and did not launch a force or instrument of harm. The Court rejected Temco’s argument that the SCA neglected its duty to identify possible dangerous pre-existing conditions and design defects.
Williams v. City of New York et al., Index No. 22225/2004 (Bronx Co. Sup. Ct., June 17, 2016)
In a decision dated May 11, 2016, Justice Janice A. Taylor granted the summary judgment motion of our clients, The City of New York, New York City Department of Transportation, and E.C.C.O. III Enterprises, Inc., dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the decedent, a bicyclist who was riding to work on Queens Boulevard, when the decedent was struck by a vehicle. The plaintiff alleged that the decedent was struck and killed by a motor vehicle exiting the westbound exit ramp of the Van Wyck Expressway in Kew Gardens, New York and that the defendants were negligent in the maintenance, operation, ownership, management and control of the roadway and exit ramp. In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court found that the hypothesis of the plaintiff’s engineering expert that the vehicle which struck the decedent entered Queens Boulevard from the Van Wyck Expressway was based purely on speculation of a material fact, had no probative value and could not be used to defeat summary judgment.
George Martinez as Administrator of the estate of Alexander G. Martinez, deceased v. The City of New York et al. (Queens Co. Sup. Ct. May 11, 2016)