Cordova v. East Point Bldrs. Corp.

2024 NY Slip Op 31020(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: March 27, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Cordova v East Point Bldrs. Corp. 2024 NY Slip Op 31020(U) March 27, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 154834/2022 Judge: Lori S. Sattler Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. INDEX NO. 154834/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LORI S. SATTLER PART 02M Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 154834/2022 DARWIN CORDOVA, MOTION DATE 01/25/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001 -v- EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP, DAVID HAMAMOTO, MARTHA HAMAMOTO, HAMPTONS BUILDING DESIGN, INC.,MJS INTERIORS CORP., MARQUEZ DECISION + ORDER ON CONSTRUCTOR CORP. D/B/A MARQUEZ DRYWALL & MOTION TAPING, MARQUEZ DRYWALL INC.,MAC-LAD CORP.,

Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

HAMPTONS BUILDING DESIGN, INC. Third-Party Index No. 595791/2023 Plaintiff,

-against-

PUCCIO ELECTRIC CONTRACTING, INC.

Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .

In this Labor Law action, Third-Party Defendant Puccio Electric Contracting Inc.

(“Puccio”) moves for an Order granting summary judgment dismissing the Third-Party

Complaint pursuant to CPLR 3212. Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Hamptons Building Design

Inc. (“Hamptons”) partially opposes the motion.

This action was commenced after a purported worksite accident in Water Mill, New York

on March 16, 2022 when Plaintiff injured his leg. At the time of the alleged incident, Hamptons

had been retained as the general contractor of the project. It subsequently retained Puccio for

154834/2022 CORDOVA, DARWIN vs. EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP ET AL Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 001

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 154834/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

electrical contracting work and Plaintiff was an employee of Puccio at the time (NYSCEF Docs.

48,49).

Puccio maintains that the third-party action must be dismissed because Plaintiff did not

suffer a “grave injury” within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Puccio further

claims that dismissal is appropriate because there was no valid contract between Puccio and

Hamptons at the time of Plaintiff’s alleged incident. Hamptons concedes that Plaintiff has not

sustained a grave injury and that Puccio is entitled to dismissal of their common law

indemnification and contribution claims. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Hamptons’ third and

fourth causes of action for common law indemnification and contribution on consent.

Hamptons opposes dismissal of the remaining causes of action, arguing that dismissal is

not warranted with respect to its contractual indemnification and contribution claims, as well as

its cause of action for breach of contract for failing to procure insurance. It annexes a one-page

document signed by Puccio and Hamptons entitled “SUBCONTRACTOR LUMP SUM

PARTIAL AFFIDAVIT OF PAYMENT, WAIVER AND RELEASE” (NYSCEF Doc. 49). It

contends that this agreement indicates that it was for all work through January 10, 2022, and that

it contains specific language that Puccio “agrees to defend and hold harmless the . . . Contractor

from and against all liens, claims, court actions, losses, or damages of whatever kind asserted by

whomever arising out of the work performed” (id.). It further asserts that the agreement “does

not set forth Puccio’s obligation to provide defense and indemnification ends on 1/10/22”

(NYSCEF Doc. 60, Affirmation in Opposition).

Hamptons additionally claims that summary judgment must be denied because discovery

has not been completed. It does not, however, assert that there are additional agreements

between the parties and did not produce one in response to Puccio’s Demand. Lastly, Hamptons

154834/2022 CORDOVA, DARWIN vs. EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 001

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 154834/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

asserts that Puccio breached the contract by failing to procure insurance. It notes that Puccio

obtained insurance but only named them as additional insured.

A party seeking summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212(b) “must make a prima facie

showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to

demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact” (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,

324 [1986]). Failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion (Winegrad v New

York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]).

Where the intent of the parties to a contract “can be determined from the face of the

agreement, interpretation is a matter of law and the case is ripe for summary judgment” (CIT

Group/Credit Fin. Inc. v Weinstein, 261 AD2d 203, 204 [1st Dept 1999], quoting American

Express Bank of Uniroyal, Inc., 164 AD2d 275, 277 [1st Dept 1990]). However, where “the

language of a contract is ambiguous, its construction presents a question of fact which may not

be resolved by the court on a motion for summary judgment” (NFL Enters. LLC v Comcast

Cable Communications, LLC, 51 AD3d 52, 61 [1st Dept 2008], quoting Pepco Constr. of N.Y.,

Inc. v CAN Ins. Co., 15 AD3d 464, 465 [2d Dept 2005]). When interpreting a contract, the court

should accord words their fair and reasonable meaning with the aim of practically interpreting

the parties’ expressions such that their reasonable expectations are realized (Dreisinger v

Teglasi, 130 AD3d 524, 527 [1st Dept 2015], quoting Duane Reade, Inc. v Cardtronics, LP, 54

AD3d 137, 140 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Strong v Dubin, 75 AD3d 66 [1st Dept 2010]).

The Court finds that the agreement is clear on its face as to the issue of duration. It states

that it is “[e]ffective for all work through: 1/10/22” and specifically states that this is the “End

Date” for the obligations set forth in the agreement. In addition, where the agreement addresses

the contractual indemnification and contribution obligations, it states that this is for work

154834/2022 CORDOVA, DARWIN vs. EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 001

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 154834/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 76 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/27/2024

“arising out of the work performed through the above specified End Date except as follows: NO

EXCEPTIONS” (NYSCEF Doc. 49). Based on a review of the agreement, its terms are clear

and unambiguous and support the contention that all of Puccio’s obligations set forth in the

agreement concluded on January 10, 2022. Accordingly, the Third-Party Complaint is dismissed

in its entirety.

All matters not decided herein are hereby denied.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

3/27/2024 $SIG$ DATE LORI S. SATTLER, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

154834/2022 CORDOVA, DARWIN vs. EAST POINT BUILDERS CORP ET AL Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 001

4 of 4 [* 4]