Opinion
1217-, 1218 Index Nos. 156724/16 595221/17 Case Nos. 2022-01851, 2022-01860
12-14-2023
Christopher CABRAL et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents–Appellants, v. The ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY et al., Defendants–Appellants–Respondents. The Rockefeller University et al., Third–Party Plaintiffs–Appellants–Respondents. v. The Prince Manufacturing Company, Third–Party Defendants. The Rockefeller University et al., Second Third–Party Plaintiffs-Appellants–Respondents, v. Northern Tool & Equipment Catalog Company, LLC, et al., Second Third–Party Defendants–Respondents–Appellants.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Eric J. Berger of counsel), for appellants-respondents. Elefterakis, Elefterakis & Panek, New York (Eileen Kaplan of counsel), for Christopher Cabral and Jaime Cabral, respondents-appellants. Stinson LLP, New York (Kieran M. Corcoran of counsel), for Northern Tool & Equipment Catalog Company, LLC, Northern Tool & Equipment Catalog Holdings, Inc., Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc., and Northern Tool & Equipment Parts, LLC, respondents-appellants.
Cozen O'Connor, New York (Eric J. Berger of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Elefterakis, Elefterakis & Panek, New York (Eileen Kaplan of counsel), for Christopher Cabral and Jaime Cabral, respondents-appellants.
Stinson LLP, New York (Kieran M. Corcoran of counsel), for Northern Tool & Equipment Catalog Company, LLC, Northern Tool & Equipment Catalog Holdings, Inc., Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc., and Northern Tool & Equipment Parts, LLC, respondents-appellants.
Kapnick, J.P., Friedman, Gonza´lez, O'Neill Levy, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered on or about February 18, 2022, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 241(6) claim, and denied so much of second third-party defendants Northern Tool & Equipment Catalog Company, LLC, Northern Tool & Equipment Catalog Holdings, Inc., Northern Tool & Equipment Company, Inc. and Northern Tool & Equipment Parts, LLC (Northern)’s motion to dismiss defendants Rockefeller University and Turner Construction Company's contractual claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 241(6) claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 24, 2022, which denied so much of defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241(6) claim, and granted so much of the same motion dismissing plaintiffs’ Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1) claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on their Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23–9.2(a), as they failed to adduce evidence that defendants or their subcontractors violated that provision by being on notice of a defect in the hydraulic arm that injured plaintiff and failed either to repair it or remove it from service (see Misicki v. Caradonna, 12 N.Y.3d 511, 521, 882 N.Y.S.2d 375, 909 N.E.2d 1213 [2009] ; Salsinha v. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., 76 A.D.3d 411, 412, 906 N.Y.S.2d 532 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Plaintiffs also failed to adduce evidence of prior notice as to whether the arm was sound and operable at the time of plaintiff's accident so as to support a violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23–1.5(c) (see Shaw v. Scepter, Inc., 187 A.D.3d 1662, 133 N.Y.S.3d 709 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Nicola v. United Veterans Mut. Hous. No. 2, Corp., 178 A.D.3d 937, 940, 116 N.Y.S.3d 296 [2d Dept. 2019] ). Defendants, however, were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing these claims as they failed to establish their prima facie burden (see Lopez v. City of New York, 203 A.D.3d 405, 406, 160 N.Y.S.3d 585 [1st Dept. 2022] ). Plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 240(1) claim was properly dismissed as this accident was not caused by the application of the force of gravity to an object (see Joseph v. City of New York, 143 A.D.3d 489, 490, 38 N.Y.S.3d 556 [1st Dept. 2016], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 904, 2019 WL 2043622 [2019] ; Medina v. City of New York, 87 A.D.3d 907, 909, 929 N.Y.S.2d 582 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Plaintiffs’ arguments in support of reinstating their Labor Law § 200 claim are unpreserved for appellate review because they failed to oppose that part of defendants’ motion which sought summary dismissal of those claims (see Howard v. Turner Const. Co., 134 A.D.3d 523, 524–525, 21 N.Y.S.3d 251 [1st Dept. 2015] ; see also Sinchi v. HWA 1290 III LLC, 184 A.D.3d 408, 409, 125 N.Y.S.3d 415 [1st Dept. 2020] ).
Defendants’ arguments concerning their third-party common-law indemnity and contribution claims against Northern were rendered moot by service of defendants’ amended complaint (see Hawthorne v. O'Keefe, 53 A.D.2d 534, 384 N.Y.S.2d 461 [1st Dept. 1976] ). Northern's arguments that defendants’ contractual claims should be dismissed are insufficiently supported. In any event, defendants’ and Northern's arguments concerning the third-party complaint have already been heard and decided by this Court in connection with an appeal relating to the amended third-party complaint (see Cabral v. Rockefeller Univ., 216 A.D.3d 527, 191 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2023] ).
We have considered the remaining contentions and find them unavailing.