Maddix v. William Paley Found. Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 30845(U)

Opinion

Maddix v William Paley Found. Inc.

2025 NY Slip Op 30845(U)

March 17, 2025

Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155441/2021 Judge: Lisa S. Headley

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.

f INDEX NO. 155441/2021 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. LISA S. HEADLEY PART 28 Justice

............ --.. --&----------------------------·-------....... H•---X INDEX NO. 155441/2021 PAUL MADDIX,

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 10/09/2024

-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. -----'-00"-2_ __

WI LLIAM PALEY FOUNDATION. INC., BLADE CONTRACTING, I NC., BLADE GENERAL CONTRACTING, DEC~SION + ORDER ON I NC.,WLA ENGi NEERING, P.C. MOTION Defendant.

The following e•filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41,42,43,44,45, 46, 47.48,49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81.

85

were read on th is motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY I. Background

The plaintifl: Paul Ma.ddix ("Plaintiff'), was employed by defendant, Blade Contracting.

Jnc.~ as a bricklayer and was engaged in faqade restoration work related to the demolition and rnnstruction at the construction site located at 1 East 5 3rd Street, >Jew· York, '-J"Y 10022 ("subjec:t premises'). In the complaint: the plaintiff al l~ges thut on JL111e 5, 2018, he and his co-workers, Lester Jones and Orin Rhodes, w~re manually transporting precast stone slabs to die 10th floor of the subject premises for foc;J.de restoration \Vork, and in an attempt to push the stones onto the windowsill through to the other side, the stone felJ back and dropped to the floor and crushed ~m.l fra'.:tured his left foot. (NYSCl.!,F Doc_ 11/o. l j. In the e0mpla1nt the plaintiff also alleges that the

0

defendants created dangerous: hazardous and de r~cti ve wnditions at the subject premises, and violated lhe fotlowi11g provistons.: Labor Law§§ 200~ 140(1); '!41 (6); and l'{ Y Industrial Code §.f 23- 1. 5~ 23.J. 7(d)-(j); 23·1. 21.- 2 3-1.24; 23-1.2 7: 23-2. I (b): 23-6.f: 23r6, 2: 23-6.3. Defendants, Wilfom Paley Foundation ("William Paley") and Blade Contracting, Inc. and Blade General Contracting: Inc. (collectively, "The Blade defon<lant:s'') each fired an Answer to Complaint. (}/YSCEF Doc. ,Vos. 38 and 39). U should be noted that co-defendant, WLA Engineering: P.C.~ v,:a'i. discontinued from this action pLirsuant to the i:Stipulation of Discontinuance/' daied July 1~, 2022. (l'·lYSCEF Doc.

' ~.,7) \ '(), .' ,- .

II. P]aintifrs !\lotion for Summar)• -' udgmcnt ]\.-f otion Seq. No. 002

Before the Court is the pluinti rrs motion for an Order, pursuant to CPLR §3212. granting summary judgment on the plainti tr.':> labor Law §240( 1) claim as against the defendant, Wi!Earn .Paley. (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 35-85). Defendant William Paley filed opposition to the motion. (S'c,e, NYSCt.:FDoc. No_ 69). Piaintiff liled a reply. (AYSCEF Doc. No. 79j.

155441/2021 MADDIX, PAUL vs. WILLIAM PALEY FOU~OATlON, INC. ET AL Page 1 of S M Otion No. 002

1 of 5

INDEX NO. 155441/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2025

The Blade defen<lants aJso filed opposition to the plaintiffs motion and filed a cross-

motion for an Order grunting summary judgment in favor of the Blade dcfondams. Jn addition, the Blade defendants seek to dismiss aH causes of action and cross-claims US_'jtrted llgainst them by the plaintiffs and co-defendant: William Paley. (See. l'ilYSCEF Doc. No. 71). In the cross-motion, the 13 ladc defendants allege thut the uc:c:ident and plaintiffs injury involved ordinary risk inherent to the v.--ork perforn1ed and did not involve a specific failure to provide safely equipment, devices or safe \vorking. conditions.

A. Standard of Review

a. CPT.R § 3212

"It is well settled that ~111e proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima jacie shov,,.ing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law: tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any mmcrial issues of fact." Pullman v. Silwrman, 28 N. Y.3d l 060, l062 (2016), Alvarez v. Prm,pect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324 (1986). -~Failure to make such shov..-ing require~ denial of the motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers.~' Winegard v. New York fJntv. ]vied Ctr., 64 N. Y.2d 851, 853 (1985) (internal citations omilled). '·On a motion for summary judgment.: facts must he 1.:iewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovtng party." CPLR § 3212. '"Once SLJCh primajaci~ showing hus been made, the burden shifts to the purty opposing lhe motion to produce evidentim:-· proof in admissible fo1m sufficient to raise muterial issues of fact \Vhich require a trial of the action.'' Cabrera v. Rodr;quez, 72 A.lJ.3d 553, 553-554 (1st Dcp't 2010).

b. Fubor Law §240(1)

Labor Law§ 240(1), also k.novvn as ,:New York 1s Scaffold La\\~' imposes ''absolute liability on building o,;,,..11ers and contractor:'i whm;e failure to provide proper protection to workers employed on a construction site proximately cau~~s injury lo a \vorhr." Sr:f, fVilinski v. J 34 F:. 92nd Hou.r. Dev. Fund. Cmp .. 18 N.Y.3d t, 7 (2011 ). The Scuffold luw slutes:

"[aJl l c:onlract0rs and owners and their agents, except ov.·ners of one und two-family dwellings ,;,vho contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance or such labor. scaffolding} hoists, stays~ ladders, sl?ngs, hangen., blocks, pulley~: hraccs~ iron;(;, ropes, and other devices which shall be so construue<l, pl U(;ed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed."

N. Y Labor Lmr § 240(1).

The lcgisbtive intent beh1nd tht statute is to place the i:ultimate responsibility for safety practjc:~~ al building constrnctionjobs ... on the owner and general contractor: ins{ead of on workers, \vho llre scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accidenL" 7immr:r v. Chr:mung County I'crjorming Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, 520 (1985). The duty imposed by Labor Law§ 240(1) is nondelegable, meaning that an owner or contractor \vho violates this duty can be held ltab!e for damages, regardless of whether they exercised adual ~upervision or control over the work. See, e.g., Haimes v. 1'./ew York Tel. Co., 46 I\. Y .2d l 32, 13 6----13 7 (1978). With respect to a falling objec:t, Labor Law §240 (lj applies where the falling ot· an object is relattd to ''a significant risk inherent in ... the reJati ve elevation ... at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured.'' RcKm'ich v. Consolidated l!,'dison Co .• 78 N. Y.2d 509, 5 14 ( 1991 ).

155441/2021 MADDIX, PAUL VG. WILLIAM PAL.EY FOUNDATION, INC. ET AL Motion No. 002

2 of 5

INDEX NO. 155441/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2025

In assessing Jiability under .°Vr?V•' York's Scajfold Lm-1.-·, tl1e legislative intent behind Lahor Law§ 240(1) i~ to ensure that llppropriate safety measures arc in place: regardles-; or logistica1 challenges or inherent danger. Sec, e.g. Rocovich v. Consoiidafrd Fdison Co., 78 >1.Y.2d 509,514 (l 991). To prevail on a Labor Law§ 240(!) claim~ the plaintiff rn~t establish that the violation of the statute was a proximate cause of his or her injuries. Blake v. }leighborhood Haus. Servs. of New York City, Inc·) I N. Y.3d 280, 286 (2003 ). Liability under the Scaffolding. Law depends upon the injury having re.'::iulted from ::the failure to use, or the inadequacy of ... a device" \Vi thin the purview of the statute. Orriz v. Varsity llofdings, LLC~ l8 N.Y.3d 335, 340 (201 l) (intemul quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, when two con llicting vi;rsions of an event are presented, and under either version, safoty devices are e1ther ub-;enl ur inudequate to protect the plaintiff, the existi.;nee of such conflicting accounts due~ not create an issue of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment. &e, luculano v. City o/Ncw York, 214 A.D.3d 535 (1st Dcp't 2023).

B. Analysis Defendant \Villiam Paley ov..11s the subject premises pursuant 10 the contract executed benvecn V,..'illiam Paley and Blade Contracting, lnc., dateJ July 20 2017. (See, NYS'CEF Doc. }./o. 41). Defendunt William Paley hired Blade Contracting, lnc., as the contractor to provtde demolition and construction services: including fa;adc restoration work, at the ~ubjec-t pr~mises. Id. Plaintiff contends that his forman, Mr ..labe1, Kerr, \vh0 also works for the Blade ddendants, inqructed the \vorkers to manually Jift the heavy stone, and that )..fr. Kerr was aware of the inherent danger of the task and the difficulty faced by the workers due to the small and tig.ht space. ffd.; see also, N}~S'CEF Doc. No. 4 7). The plaintiff testified that Ihe plaintiff and two of his co-\vorkcr~ lost control of a hca\'Y stone while attempting to place the stone on a windo\vsill without any securing or hoisting devices. As a result, the Slone ~lipped off the v,.:indov,.:siH and fell straight d0'-"11, crushing his leg. (See, ."11.·TSCFF Doc. 4] '1f pp. 46-48. 51. 53. 84).

In opposilion, de t~ndant William Paley argues that \Vhen an object is being handled by three experienced tradesmen no safety device is required since the stone was being. placed in the ,vindow. Defendant William Paley argues that the Blade workers made the decision to move the stone by hand. (See, NYSC.EF Doc. 1Vo. 69 ). Defendant William Paley al so submits Mr. Curti ':> Sioley·s deposition testimony~ who testified that he was not pre~ent ut Lhe '-.:onstrw:ti0n :::.ile, however he was infonned hy the foreman, Mr. Kerr, that the plaintiff dropped the stone i:on his foot pllrposely". (."!\TSCF: F Doc. ]',/o . .J.5 at page 11_. lines 19 - 24). Mr. Sloley also tcstjfied: inter ,.dicl, that I\--lr. KelT arrived at the worksite after the plaintiffs accident~ and \i1r. Kerr was ahle lo pick up the stone on one end. and it only weighed approximately 200 pounds. (See. ATSCEF Doc. No. -16 ar pp. 59}.

Mr. Sloley atte~ls tha.l thi; plaintiff and the Blade \Vorkers at the subject premises \Vere instructed to ~el llp pl anh resting: on the tenth floor \Vind ow ledge and the floor o Cthe interiur o lTice to keep the stone on the plank and to slide the stone up to thj; windov,:sill \.Yhere the other \vorker from outside the subject prcnfr;.;es v.--ould Lhen sl1de the stone dov,,:n to the other side of the \Vindow while using another plank a.ml attach the stone to a hoist to pick it up. (/'•iYSCFF Dot:. No. 46 :\Ir. at pp. 5fJ•51). The defendant William Paley acknowledged through 13lade's supervisor's depo_'ji ti on testimony that the plaintiff and the Blade v,:orkers v,,:ere not provided a hoist to pcrfi.)rn1 their work. 1\-fr. Sloley testified th.at there were no hoi-,ls available to the illadc workers at the lime of the im.::ident because it was not necessary. {,VYSCF..F Doc .•~-lo. 46 }vfr. at pp. 54, lines 6-14). Although, l\-fr. Sloley testified that a hoist was not use<l inside due to space constraints, this limitution does not eliminate the need for a safe1y device. Plaintiffs. work involved posittoning the load at a different level rclativi.; to his own. Mr. Sloley's testified that the intended method involved

155441/2021 MADDIX, PA.UL V:5-, WILLIAM PALEY FOUNDATION, INC. ET AL Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 002.

3 of 5

INDEX NO. 155441/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2025

in moving the stone was sliding the stone upward on a plank. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 46 Afr. Sloley at pp. 50-51. lines 22-25. lj.

This Court finds that the defendant faiJed to provide adequate safety devices. to the plaintiff, who was required to place the stone weighing 200 pounds through a temh-floor \vindowsill. The owner or contractor should have devised an altemati ve rndhod to ensure worker safety. Sec, Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., supra. Her~, the stone v,,'as unsecured and unsupponed by any safety device while being held at an ~1~vateJ pusi ti on relative to the pJaintiff. Thus, the plaintiffs \Vork wa~ suhject to apparent risk urising from an elevation diffel'ential, which is precisely the type of hazan.l Labor Lmr §240(1) aims to mitigate. Id. The '1ultjmatc responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs'' lies with the o\vner and 1he general contractor. This duty is nonddcgablc, meaning that the defcndam can be held strictly hab le for violaling the duty, and be held liahle frlr Jamagt;$, r~gan.l1ess of whether they exercised actual supervision or control OVi;T the work. Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing ,1n.t, 65 >J. Y.2d 513, 520 ( 1985 ); Haimes v. New York Tel. Co .. 46 l\. Y.2d 132, l 36--137 ( 1978)). Accordingly, th~ pluintiff s motion for an Order: pursuant to CPLR §3212, granting summary judgment on the plaintiffs Labor Law §240(1) daim as against th~ ddendant-owner, \Villiam Paley is granted.

III. Defendants Blade Contracting, Inc. and Blade General Contracting, Inc. ~s Cross-Motion for Summary .Judgment

A cross-motion is "·merely a motion by any party against the party who made the original motion, made returnable at the same time as the original motion.'~ Patrick JI Connors, Pracrice Commentaries, McKinnc)/s Cons. Laivs 0_(1V. Y., Book 7H, CP LR C21 J5: 1; see also~ CP LR §2115}; see also, Kersha·..,, v. llo.~p. jhr Special Surgery~ 114 AD.Jct 75, 87 ( I st Dep'l 2013). The Col.lrt has "held that laj cross motion \V~ nol suffo.::iently related to the main motion ,md refused to entertain 11." Maggio 1' 24 W 57 AI'F, LLC. 134 A.D.3d 621, 628-29 (1st Dep't 2015) fintcrnal citations omitted].

Here, the main motion filed by plaintiff sought summary judgment on the plaintiffs Lafwr Law §2,./0(lj claim as against the ddcndant, William Paley. The Blade defendants filed a crossmotjon seeking summary judgment and dismissal of aJl causes of action ussen~d against them by plaintiff for l) negligenc~; 2) violation of Labor Lmv §200; 3) violation of Labor Law §240(1); 4) violal1on or rabor Law §24 i (6); and 5) violation of N. Y. industrial Code§§ 23-1. 5; 2 3-l. 7(d)-((); 2]. 1. 22; 23-1. 24_· 23-1. 2 7; 23-2.1 (bj; 23-6.1; 23-6. 2; 13-6. 3) and the di:;;rni ssal ot· all cros~-dajms asserted by defendant William Paley for l) common knv indemnification; 2) common law contribution; 3) contractual ind~mni ficatJon~ and 4) breach of contract for faiJurc to procure rnsurancc.

Plaintiff filed 0pposition to the cross-motion arguing this cs. not a true cross-motion since the plai miff did not move against the Blade defendants in his own motion for summary judgrn~nl and lhal the. movam~plainLiff in the main motion limited his arguments solely to l.abor law §240{1j, with no mention of the common lav..-" negJigcncc, Labor Low §200 or Labor I.aw §24 l (6) causes of ac{ion. ~\-'YS'CEF fl{)c_ No. 79). Defendant-ov,mer, William Paky, did not file opposiLion to the Blade defendant's cross-motion. However, William Paley fikd a ~eparale motion ~eeking suimnary judgment in Mmion Sequence Number 003. (See, A'rSCEF Doc. 7'./oY. 57 - 86).

Herc, the Blad~ defendants: cross-motion improperly seeks n~lief from tl1e nonmovant, \Villiarn Paley. The cros':>-motion also seeks relief not rdatcd 10 the plaintifrs motion for summary

155441/2021 MADDIX, PAUL vs.. WILLIAM PALEY FOUNDATION, INC. ET AL Page4 of 5- Motton No. 00.2

4 of 5

INDEX NO. 155441/2021

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2025

judgment solely regarding Labor Law §240( I)." As such, this Court declines to consider the Blade defendants: cross-motion. id.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED thut the motion filed by plaintiff Paul Maddix for an Order, granting plaintiff summary judgment as to liability on his !.ahnr Law§ 240( 1j daim is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that a<; stated herein lhis Court declines to the consider the defendants, Blade Contracting, Inc. and B1ade General Co1macting, Inc.' s cross-motion for an Order granting summary judgment and dismissing all causes of action and cross-claims asserled aga.in~l them by plaintiff and/or co•defendant \Vil 11am Paley since lhe CJO.'js-motion was not sufficiently related to the main motion; an<l it is fort.her ORDERED that any requested relief sought not expressly addressed herein ha:'i nonetheless been considered: and it is further ORDF.RED that within 30 Jays 0f enlry, movan1-plaintiff shall stn~ a copy of this Decision/Order upon the all the parties with notice of entry.

This constltutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

3/17/2025

ClATE LISA S. HEADLEY, J.S.C.

CASI:. 015 POSi:.O NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GAAMT£0 □ DENI ED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPllCATION: Sl:TTL.E Ofl DER SUBMIT ORDER

Cl-ti: CK I~ APPfi:OPRIA TE: 1NCLUDES TRANS F EruREASSI GN Fl D UC IA RY AP PO INT M ENT □ REFERENCE

15544112021 MADDIX, PAUL vs. WILLIAM PALEY FOUNDATION, INC, ET AL Page 5 of5 Motion No. 002

5 of 5