Opinion
Index No. 518835/2021 Mot. Seq. No.: 4 5
01-12-2024
BRITTANY SAMMUT, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, STV INCORPORATED, SATTERFIELD AND PONTIKES CONSTRUCTION, INC., and WEST STREET GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERS III, L.P., Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
PART 73
Motion Date: 10-16-23
DECISION/ORPER
PETER P. SWEENEY, J.S.C.
The following papers, which are e-filed with NYCEF as items 70-144, were read on these motions:
In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff, BRITTANY SAMMUT, moved for an Order pursuant to CPLR 3212, (a) granting her partial summary judgment with respect to liability against Defendants PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, DELTA AIR LINES, INC., STV INCORPORATED, and SATTERFIELD AND PONTIKES CONSTRUCTION, INC. on her claims pursuant to Labor Law §§ 241(6), 200 and common law negligence; and (b) dismissing Defendants' affirmative defenses alleging Plaintiff s comparative negligence or culpable conduct; together with such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. The defendants, DELTA AIR LINES, INC. ("Delta"), THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY ("The Port Authority"), STV INCORPORATED, and SATTERFIELD AND PONTIKES CONSTRUCTION INC. cross-moved for an Order: (a) Pursuant to CPLR § 3212, granting them summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims; (b) Pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment to Defendants and dismissing Plaintiffs complaint as to Plaintiffs Labor Law § 240(1) claim; (c) Pursuant to CPLR § 3212 granting summary judgment to Defendants and dismissing Plaintiffs complaint as to Plaintiffs Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on Industrial Code Sections 23-1.5;23-1.7; 23-1.7 (a)-(c) and (e)- (h); 234.8(c); 23-2.1(a)(1) and (2); 23-2.1(b); 234.30; 23-2.7(a) through (e); 23-3.3(e)(f)(g); and (d) for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
By short form order dated October 16,2023, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff claim under Labor Law § 240(1), reserved decision on those branches of the plaintiffs and defendants' motions involving liability under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence and denied the remaining branches of both motions The Court will now address plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence and defendants' motion dismissing those claims.
The plaintiff commenced this action claiming that on February 6, 2021, she suffered injuries when she slipped and fell on an icy plywood ramp while performing construction work at LaGuardia Airport. Plaintiffs motion must be denied.
Labor Law § 200 is a codification of tire common-law duty of owners, contractors, and their agents to provide workers with a safe place to work" (Dato v. Astoria Energy II, LLC, 129 A.D.3d 660, 663, 11 N.Y.S.3d 201; see Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 N.Y.2d 343, 352, 670 N.Y.S.2d 816, 693 N.E.2d 1068). "Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories, namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed" (Torres v. City of New York, 127 A.D.3d 1163, 1165, 7 N.Y.S.3d 539). Where, as here, a plaintiffs "claim arises out of an alleged dangerous premises condition, a property owner or general contractor may be held liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 when the owner or general contractor has control over the work site and either created the dangerous condition causing an injury, or failed to remedy the dangerous or defective condition while having actual or constructive notice of it" (Abelleira v. City' of New York, 120 A.D.3d 1163, 1164, 992 N.Y.S.2d 324; see Shaughnessy v. Huntington Hosp. Assn., 147 A.D.3d 994, 997,47 N.Y.S.3d 121; Rodriguez v. HY 38 Owner, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 839, 841, 143N.Y.S.3d 411,413). Thus, to meet her burden of establishing her prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on her Labor Law 200 and common law negligence claims, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that Delta and the Joint Venture either created the condition that caused plaintiffs accident, or actual or constructive notice of the condition.
The Court rejects plaintiffs claim that the evidence demonstrates as a matter of law that Delta and the Joint Venture created the dangerous condition on the ramp by failing to install expanded metal on the ramp. The failure to install the expanded metal simply did not create the icy condition that plaintiff claims caused her accident.
The plaintiff did not submit any evidence demonstrating, as a matter of law, that Delta and the Joint Venture had actual notice of the icy condition of the ramp prior to plaintiffs accident. Further, since the plaintiff did not present any evidence demonstrating how long the icy condition on the ramp was in existence prior to the accident, plaintiff did not establish constructive notice as a matter of law. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff showing that it snowed in the days prior to the incident did not demonstrate how long the ramp was in an icy condition.
For the above reasons, the plaintiff did not establish her entitlement to summary judgment on her common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Plaintiff s motion must therefore be denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.
Turning to defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims, as the proponents of the motion, the defendants were required to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate all triable issues of fact (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642; D'Esposito v. Manetto Hill Auto Serv., Inc., 150 A.D.3d 817, 817-818, 54 N.Y.S.3d 429). This they failed to do. Simply stated, the moving defendants failed to show prima facie that they did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged icy conditions which caused the injured plaintiff to fall.
For the above reasons, defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims is denied regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDRED that both motions are denied.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.