McGiver v City of New York 2024 NY Slip Op 31043(U) March 28, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 157640/2020 Judge: Judy H. Kim 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. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JUDY H. KIM PART 04 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 157640/2020 MARGARET POWER MCGIVER, MOTION DATE 05/30/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 -v- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, DECISION + ORDER ON BREEZE NATIONAL INC, JOHN CIVETTA & SONS, MOTION INC.,JOHN CIVETTA CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, BREEZE NATIONAL INC, JOHN CIVETTA & SONS, INC.,JOHN CIVETTA CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Third-Party Plaintiffs, Index No. 595932/2022 -v-
ANCHORMEN CONSTRUCTION LLC,
Third-Party Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Ind
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 were read on this motion to VACATE/STRIKE - NOTE OF ISSUE .
Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by defendants the City of New York, the
American Museum of Natural History, Tishman Construction Corp., John Civetta & Sons, Inc.
157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 004
[* 1] 1 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
and John Civetta Construction Corp. to vacate the note of issue and remove this action from the
trial calendar (or, alternatively, permit certain post-note of issue discovery) is granted and the note
of issue is vacated.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 17, 2020, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that on March 12, 2020
she was working as an employee of Anchormen Construction, LLC (“Anchormen”) at 365
Columbus Avenue, New York, New York when she was injured due to defendants’ negligence,
and asserting claims for common law negligence and claims under Labor Law §§200, 240(1) and
241(6) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2 [Compl.]).
On April 8, 2021, defendants commenced a third-party action against Anchormen,
contending that any injuries plaintiff sustained were due solely to Anchormen’s negligence and
asserting claims for contractual and common law indemnification and contribution (NYSCEF Doc.
No. 17 [Third Party Answer at ¶22]).
On November 9, 2022, plaintiff and defendants entered into a discovery stipulation,
subsequently so ordered, which directed defendants to “re-file the third-party complaint on or
before 11/18/22” and added that “if [Anchormen] does not appear or answer within 30 days of this
filing, the third-party action will be preemptively severed” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 58)(emphasis
added). Defendants then re-filed their third-party complaint (denominated a “Second Third Party
Complaint”) on NYSCEF on November 17, 2022 and served same on Anchormen via the New
York State Secretary of State on December 6, 2022 and via personal service on December 13,
2022.
157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 004
[* 2] 2 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
Anchormen answered the Third-Party Complaint on February 8, 2023.
On April 3, 2023, the parties filed another stipulation providing, as pertinent here, that all
parties were to respond to Anchormen’s written demands within thirty days and extending
plaintiff’s time to sever the third-party action and file the note of note of issue to May 5, 2023
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 101). Plaintiff did not make any effort to sever the third-party action by that
date, though she did file the note of issue on May 8, 2023.
On May 30, 2023, defendants filed the instant motion, arguing that vacatur is necessary as
“written discovery is still being exchanged between defendants and Anchormen and the
examination before trial of Anchormen has yet to occur,” and an orthopedic and neurological IME
of plaintiff were also outstanding (NYSCEF Doc. No. 112 [Hopkins Affirm. at ¶14]).
DISCUSSION
Defendants’ motion is granted. 22 NYCRR §202.21(e) provides, in pertinent part, that “the
court may vacate the note of issue if it appears that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is
incorrect, or that the certificate of readiness fails to comply with the requirements of this section
in some material respect.” Here, plaintiff’s certificate of readiness stated that discovery was
completed when it is undisputed that, per the parties’ April 3, 2023 stipulation, discovery was
outstanding in the third-party action. To the extent plaintiff asserts that the third-party action was
severed and therefore any outstanding discovery in that action has no bearing here, the Court
disagrees.
Contrary to plaintiff’s interpretation of the November 9, 2022 stipulation, it did not serve
to sever the third-party action, “preemptively” or otherwise. First, this stipulation indicates that
any severance is conditioned upon Anchormen’s failure to file a third-party answer within twenty
days of defendants’ filing of the third-party complaint. As such, any severance necessarily would
157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 004
[* 3] 3 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
require an application to the Court including proof of such default prior to any severance. This
conclusion is supported by the parties’ subsequent stipulation setting an outside date for plaintiff
to “sever the third party action.” Notably, plaintiff did not make any such application or motion in
the time frame allotted or anytime thereafter.
The Court declines to extend plaintiff’s time to make such an application, for two reasons:
First, the parties’ stipulation impermissibly narrowed the deadline for Anchormen to interpose a
third-party answer, directing that it do so within twenty days of the filing of the third-party
complaint rather than within twenty (or thirty) days from defendants’ service of the third-party
complaint (See CPLR §320[a]). Accordingly, any default by Anchormen under this stipulation is
of no effect and not grounds for severance.
Additionally, the Court notes that “[a]lthough it is within a trial court’s discretion to grant
a severance, this discretion should be exercised sparingly” and is disfavored where, as here “the
claims against the defendants involve common factual and legal issues, and the interests of judicial
economy and consistency of verdicts will be served by having a single trial” (Barrett v New York
City Health and Hosps.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McGiver v City of New York 2024 NY Slip Op 31043(U) March 28, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 157640/2020 Judge: Judy H. Kim 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. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JUDY H. KIM PART 04 Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 157640/2020 MARGARET POWER MCGIVER, MOTION DATE 05/30/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 -v- THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, DECISION + ORDER ON BREEZE NATIONAL INC, JOHN CIVETTA & SONS, MOTION INC.,JOHN CIVETTA CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, BREEZE NATIONAL INC, JOHN CIVETTA & SONS, INC.,JOHN CIVETTA CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Third-Party Plaintiffs, Index No. 595932/2022 -v-
ANCHORMEN CONSTRUCTION LLC,
Third-Party Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Ind
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123 were read on this motion to VACATE/STRIKE - NOTE OF ISSUE .
Upon the foregoing documents, the motion by defendants the City of New York, the
American Museum of Natural History, Tishman Construction Corp., John Civetta & Sons, Inc.
157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 1 of 6 Motion No. 004
[* 1] 1 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
and John Civetta Construction Corp. to vacate the note of issue and remove this action from the
trial calendar (or, alternatively, permit certain post-note of issue discovery) is granted and the note
of issue is vacated.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 17, 2020, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that on March 12, 2020
she was working as an employee of Anchormen Construction, LLC (“Anchormen”) at 365
Columbus Avenue, New York, New York when she was injured due to defendants’ negligence,
and asserting claims for common law negligence and claims under Labor Law §§200, 240(1) and
241(6) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2 [Compl.]).
On April 8, 2021, defendants commenced a third-party action against Anchormen,
contending that any injuries plaintiff sustained were due solely to Anchormen’s negligence and
asserting claims for contractual and common law indemnification and contribution (NYSCEF Doc.
No. 17 [Third Party Answer at ¶22]).
On November 9, 2022, plaintiff and defendants entered into a discovery stipulation,
subsequently so ordered, which directed defendants to “re-file the third-party complaint on or
before 11/18/22” and added that “if [Anchormen] does not appear or answer within 30 days of this
filing, the third-party action will be preemptively severed” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 58)(emphasis
added). Defendants then re-filed their third-party complaint (denominated a “Second Third Party
Complaint”) on NYSCEF on November 17, 2022 and served same on Anchormen via the New
York State Secretary of State on December 6, 2022 and via personal service on December 13,
2022.
157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 2 of 6 Motion No. 004
[* 2] 2 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
Anchormen answered the Third-Party Complaint on February 8, 2023.
On April 3, 2023, the parties filed another stipulation providing, as pertinent here, that all
parties were to respond to Anchormen’s written demands within thirty days and extending
plaintiff’s time to sever the third-party action and file the note of note of issue to May 5, 2023
(NYSCEF Doc. No. 101). Plaintiff did not make any effort to sever the third-party action by that
date, though she did file the note of issue on May 8, 2023.
On May 30, 2023, defendants filed the instant motion, arguing that vacatur is necessary as
“written discovery is still being exchanged between defendants and Anchormen and the
examination before trial of Anchormen has yet to occur,” and an orthopedic and neurological IME
of plaintiff were also outstanding (NYSCEF Doc. No. 112 [Hopkins Affirm. at ¶14]).
DISCUSSION
Defendants’ motion is granted. 22 NYCRR §202.21(e) provides, in pertinent part, that “the
court may vacate the note of issue if it appears that a material fact in the certificate of readiness is
incorrect, or that the certificate of readiness fails to comply with the requirements of this section
in some material respect.” Here, plaintiff’s certificate of readiness stated that discovery was
completed when it is undisputed that, per the parties’ April 3, 2023 stipulation, discovery was
outstanding in the third-party action. To the extent plaintiff asserts that the third-party action was
severed and therefore any outstanding discovery in that action has no bearing here, the Court
disagrees.
Contrary to plaintiff’s interpretation of the November 9, 2022 stipulation, it did not serve
to sever the third-party action, “preemptively” or otherwise. First, this stipulation indicates that
any severance is conditioned upon Anchormen’s failure to file a third-party answer within twenty
days of defendants’ filing of the third-party complaint. As such, any severance necessarily would
157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 004
[* 3] 3 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
require an application to the Court including proof of such default prior to any severance. This
conclusion is supported by the parties’ subsequent stipulation setting an outside date for plaintiff
to “sever the third party action.” Notably, plaintiff did not make any such application or motion in
the time frame allotted or anytime thereafter.
The Court declines to extend plaintiff’s time to make such an application, for two reasons:
First, the parties’ stipulation impermissibly narrowed the deadline for Anchormen to interpose a
third-party answer, directing that it do so within twenty days of the filing of the third-party
complaint rather than within twenty (or thirty) days from defendants’ service of the third-party
complaint (See CPLR §320[a]). Accordingly, any default by Anchormen under this stipulation is
of no effect and not grounds for severance.
Additionally, the Court notes that “[a]lthough it is within a trial court’s discretion to grant
a severance, this discretion should be exercised sparingly” and is disfavored where, as here “the
claims against the defendants involve common factual and legal issues, and the interests of judicial
economy and consistency of verdicts will be served by having a single trial” (Barrett v New York
City Health and Hosps. Corp., 150 AD3d 949, 950-51 [2d Dept 2017] [internal citations and
quotations omitted]; see also Range v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of NY, 150 AD3d
515, 516 [1st Dept 2017]).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants’ motion to vacate the note of issue is granted and the note of
issue is vacated and the case is stricken from the trial calendar; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants shall, within fifteen days from the date of this decision and
order, serve a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, on all parties and upon the
157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 4 of 6 Motion No. 004
[* 4] 4 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office, who is hereby directed to strike the case from the trial calendar
and make all required notations thereof in the records of the court; and it is further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office shall be made
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk
Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s
website); and it is further
ORDERED that defendants shall, within twenty days from the date of this decision and
order, notice an IME limited to plaintiff’s October 25, 2023 surgical procedure (noticed by filing
and servicing of a Supplemental Bill of Particulars on January 9, 2024 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 129]);
and it is further
ORDERED that said IME is to be held within sixty days of the date of the notice; and it is
further
ORDERED that defendants shall exchange IME reports within thirty days from the date
of plaintiff’s IME; and it is further
ORDERED that, upon the completion of discovery as outlined above, the plaintiff shall
cause the action to be placed upon the trial calendar by the filing of a new note of issue and
certificate of readiness (for which no fee shall be imposed), to which shall be attached a copy of
this order the plaintiff shall move to reinstate the note of issue as provided in Uniform Rule
§202.21(f); and it is further
157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 5 of 6 Motion No. 004
[* 5] 5 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/28/2024 05:00 PM INDEX NO. 157640/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 130 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/28/2024
ORDERED that the parties are to appear for a status conference in Part 4 (80 Centre Street,
room 308) on June 7, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at which time the Court will set the date for filing the
note of issue.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
3/28/2024 DATE HON. JUDY H. KIM, 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
157640/2020 POWER MCGIVER, MARGARET vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 6 of 6 Motion No. 004
[* 6] 6 of 6