Mendez v. Europa Gen. Contr. Corp.

2025 NY Slip Op 30518(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, New York County
DecidedFebruary 13, 2025
DocketIndex No. 155070/2022
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 30518(U) (Mendez v. Europa Gen. Contr. Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, New York County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mendez v. Europa Gen. Contr. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 30518(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2025).

Opinion

Mendez v Europa Gen. Contr. Corp. 2025 NY Slip Op 30518(U) February 13, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155070/2022 Judge: Mary V. Rosado 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. 155070/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON.MARYV.ROSADO PART 33M Justice ---------------------------------X INDEX NO. 155070/2022 HECTOR MENDEZ, MOTION DATE 06/18/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 -v- EUROPA GENERAL CONTRACTING CORP., STELLAR MANAGEMENT LTD, 3430 BWAY OWNER, LLC,MEL DECISION + ORDER ON MANAGEMENT CORP. OBA STELLAR MANAGEMENT MOTION

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

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81,82, 83, 84, 92, 93, 94, 95 VACATE/STRIKE - NOTE OF ISSUE/JURY were read on this motion to/for DEMAND/FROM TRIAL CALENDAR

Upon the foregoing documents, Plaintiff Hector Mendez's ("Plaintiff') motion to vacate

the note of issue is granted. Defendant Europa General Contracting Corp.' s ("Europa") cross-

motion seeking discovery sanctions or in the alternative compelling Plaintiff to produce certain

discovery is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

Plaintiff, who was formerly employed as a superintendent of a building located at 556 West

140th Street, New York, New York, (the "Building") and managed by Defendant Stellar

Management, Ltd. ("Stellar Management"), was allegedly injured while performing work on the

roof of the Building. Plaintiff filed his Note of Issue on March 29, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. 54). On

the certificate of trial readiness, Plaintiffs counsel stated that despite filing the note of issue, there

remained outstanding discovery related to Plaintiffs work cell phone and bank statements from

Defendants Stellar Management and Europa. Four days before the note of issue was due, Plaintiff

155070/2022 MENDEZ, HECTOR vs. EUROPA GENERAL CONTRACTING CORP. ET AL Page 1 of 5 Motion No. 002

1 of 5 [* 1] INDEX NO. 155070/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2025

submitted a letter, via NYSCEF 1, stating that Plaintiff only recently discovered he was in

possession of his work telephone, which purportedly has texts and photographs related to the

incident. However, Plaintiff allegedly cannot access the texts and photographs because only Stellar

Management has the password to unlock the telephone. Plaintiff stated as a result he was not ready

to file the note of issue - yet he proceeded to file the note of issue on March 29, 2024.

Meanwhile, Europa filed a motion for summary judgment on June 11, 2024. 2 A status

conference was held on June 12, 2024, because Plaintiff requested guidance regarding the

procedural status of the case. Defense counsel opposed any further discovery taking place because

the note of issue and a motion for summary judgment had been filed, Plaintiffs request to vacate

the note of issue was untimely, and because Plaintiff had been in possession of the work phone

throughout litigation in contradiction of his prior sworn testimony. Unable to reach any sort of

resolution, and given the fact intensive nature of the dispute, Plaintiff was directed to file the instant

motion so each party could present their positions regarding this case's unique procedural posture.

II. Discussion

As a preliminary matter, although Plaintiffs motion is untimely pursuant to 22 NYCRR §

202.21, the Court will entertain the motion as Plaintiff first attempted to resolve the issues without

Court intervention, and then again attempted to resolve the issues at a conference with the Court

prior to filing this motion. Moreover, Defendants have taken an obstructionist and gamesman-like

approach to resolving this discovery dispute rather than cooperating with Plaintiff to retrieve the

purported text messages and photographs from the work telephone, which if retrievable, may be

dispositive of certain issues in this case. Further, the Court is mindful that there is a strong public

1 Plaintiff did not contact the part-clerk regarding the impending note of issue deadline, nor did Plaintiff provide a hard copy of the letter to the Court. 2 Defendants Stellar Management Ltd., 3430 Bway Owner, LLC, and Mel Management Corp. d/b/a Stellar Management filed their own motion for summary judgment on July 26, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. 98). 155070/2022 MENDEZ, HECTOR vs. EUROPA GENERAL CONTRACTING CORP. ET AL Page 2 of 5 Motion No. 002

2 of 5 [* 2] INDEX NO. 155070/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2025

policy in New York to have cases heard on the merits rather than decided on technicalities (Rosario

v General Behr Corp., 217 AD3d 641 [1st Dept 2023]).

The Court further finds that Plaintiff's failure to disclose the work telephone was not

willful. Plaintiff, who allegedly had his left foot and all his right toes amputated because of the

accident giving rise to this lawsuit, and who was evicted from his New York apartment and forced

to relocate to South Carolina, swears in an affidavit that he did not realize he was in possession of

his work cellphone until March of 2024, as it remained in an unpacked box. Plaintiff's counsel

notified Defendants of the recently discovered telephone and Defendants have seemingly refused

to cooperate in retrieving evidence from that telephone. Nor can Plaintiff's counsel be said to have

waived this discovery as she noted it was outstanding when the note of issue was filed. Moreover,

the case remains on the trial calendar and there is no imminent trial date. Under these

circumstances, and because Plaintiff states the case is not trial ready and the note of issue was only

filed to comply with this Court's order dated January 31, 2024 (NYSCEF Doc. 47), the Court

grants Plaintiff's motion to vacate the note of issue (see, e.g. Ruiz v Park Gramercy Owners Corp.,

182 AD3d 471 [1st Dept 2020]). The parties shall begin immediately cooperating in good faith to

retrieve the relevant texts and photographs from Plaintiff's work telephone. To the extent Plaintiff

seeks bank statements, that request should come in the form of a formal demand for discovery and

inspection, or a deficiency letter, as opposed to an informal request via e-mail.

Europa's cross-motion is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent Europa seeks an

order compelling Plaintiff to produce his work telephone for inspection, and to resubmit for a

deposition regarding the undisclosed contents produced from that work telephone, Europa's cross-

motion is granted. Moreover, to the extent Europa seeks an order from this Court striking

Plaintiff's e-mail request for bank statements, that relief is granted. An informal and imprecise

155070/2022 MENDEZ, HECTOR vs. EUROPA GENERAL CONTRACTING CORP. ET AL Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 002

[* 3] 3 of 5 INDEX NO. 155070/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 117 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/13/2025

request for discovery and inspection via e-mail does not fall under one of the enumerated methods

of obtaining disclosure pursuant to CPLR § 3102.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ruiz v. Park Gramercy Owners Corp.
2020 NY Slip Op 2260 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Rosario v. General Behr Corp.
192 N.Y.S.3d 122 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 30518(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendez-v-europa-gen-contr-corp-nysupctnewyork-2025.