Opinion
# 2016-045-009 Claim No. 124529 Motion No. M-87450
03-31-2016
In the Matter of JAMES CIULLO and JANNA CIULLO v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Salenger, Sack, Kimmel & Bavaro, LLP By: Christopher J. Pogan, Esq. Tromello, McDonnell & Kehoe By: Kevin P. Slattery, Esq.
Synopsis
Defendant's motion for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel due to workers' compensation board decision.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-045-009 |
| Claimant(s): | In the Matter of JAMES CIULLO and JANNA CIULLO |
| Claimant short name: | CIULLO |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | The caption has been amended, sua sponte, to reflect the State of New York as the only properly named defendant. |
|---|---|
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 124529 |
| Motion number(s): | M-87450 |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA |
| Claimant's attorney: | Salenger, Sack, Kimmel & Bavaro, LLP By: Christopher J. Pogan, Esq. |
| Defendant's attorney: | Tromello, McDonnell & Kehoe By: Kevin P. Slattery, Esq. |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | March 31, 2016 |
| City: | Hauppauge |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion: Defendant's Notice of Motion, Defendant's Affirmation in Support with annexed Exhibits A-E and Claimants' Affirmation in Opposition with annexed Exhibit A.
Defendant, the State of New York, has brought this motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 seeking an order granting it summary judgment in this matter. Claimants, James Ciullo and Janna Ciullo, have opposed this motion.
At the outset the Court notes that claimants improperly listed the State University of New York as a defendant in the caption of the claim. It is well settled that the State of New York is the real party in interest for claims brought against the State University of New York (Morell v Balasubramanian, 70 NY2d 297 [1987]). Thus, the Court is constrained to dismiss such claims brought against the State University of New York as a named defendant. The parties previously stipulated to discontinue all claims against The Research Foundation for The State University of New York.
Claimants alleged in the claim that on August 22, 2013 James Ciullo was employed by Gordon L. Seaman, Inc. to perform construction and renovation work, specifically the installation of telecommunication wiring at the State University of New York - Farmingdale BioScience Park Building. Mr. Ciullo alleged that on that date at approximately 10:30 a.m., the unsecured A-frame ladder he was using wobbled, and as a result he slid and fell down the ladder, thereby causing him to sustain severe personal injuries. Claimants have brought claims based upon violations of Labor Law and general negligence principals. Defendant argues for dismissal based upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
The party seeking summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by offering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case (Cox v Kingsboro Med. Group, 88 NY2d 904 [1996]; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). Failure to make a prima facie showing requires denial of summary judgment, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Once the proponent of a summary judgment motion establishes a prima facie showing then the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to demonstrate the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In determining a summary judgment motion, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party (Gradwohl v Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC, 70 AD3d 634 [2d Dept 2010]).
The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action an issue clearly raised in a prior action and decided against that party or those in privity to that party (Ryan v New York Tel. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984]). Collateral estoppel is applicable to give conclusive effect to the quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies including decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board (Vitello v Amboy Bus Co., 83 AD3d 932 [2d Dept 2011]). In order to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel, two requirements must be satisfied. "First, the party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel must prove that the identical issue was necessarily decided in the prior action and is decisive in the present action... [and] [s]econd, the party to be precluded from relitigating an issue must have had a full and fair opportunity to contest the prior determination" (D'Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 76 NY2d 659, 664 [1990]). It is well settled that a litigant need not have been a party to the original action in order to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel on its behalf in a subsequent action (B. R. DeWitt, Inc. v Hall, 19 NY2d 141 [1967]). The "party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination, whereas the party attempting to defeat its application has the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action" (Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co., 65 NY2d 449, 456 [1985]).
In support of its motion, defendant relies on the decision from the Administrative Review Division of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed on July 3, 2015. James Ciullo had requested review by the Board of the underlying Workers' Compensation Law Judge's Decision filed on August 1, 2014. On review, the Board Panel Decision set forth the facts that Mr. Ciullo filed a workers' compensation claim for his injuries arising out of a August 22, 2013 accident. A number of issues were raised including whether or not the accident arose in the course of Mr. Ciullo's employment. The Board reviewed claimant's testimony from the hearing held on June 13, 2014. Mr. Ciullo testified that while at work on August 22, 2013 he fell from the ladder he was standing upon when someone hit the ladder. The Board Panel Decision noted that the fall from the ladder was not mentioned in any medical report until March 2014, seven months after the alleged injury occurred. Further, Mr. Ciullo's treating physician admitted that he filled out paperwork for Mr. Ciullo to receive disability benefits and that the paperwork reported that the injury was not the result of a work-related injury. The Board concluded that the lay testimony combined with the medical evidence did not provide sufficient evidence that a work injury occurred. As such, the Board found sufficient evidence in the record to support the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's determination that Mr. Ciullo failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that he sustained a compensable injury at work.
In opposition, claimants set forth that an appeal of the Administrative Review Division of the Workers' Compensation Board, filed on July 3, 2015 was filed with the Appellate Division Third Department on July 14, 2015. To date, the parties have not established that a decision has been rendered on the appeal.
Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that defendant has failed to meet its burden as there has not yet been a final determination in this matter. As such, defendant's motion for summary judgment is denied.
March 31, 2016
Hauppauge, New York
GINA M. LOPEZ-SUMMA
Judge of the Court of Claims