Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC

2024 NY Slip Op 33556(U)
CourtNew York Supreme Court, Kings County
DecidedOctober 3, 2024
DocketIndex No. 505745/2019
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 33556(U) (Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court, Kings County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 33556(U) (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2024).

Opinion

Molina v Venchi 2, LLC 2024 NY Slip Op 33556(U) October 3, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 505745/2019 Judge: Wayne Saitta 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: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2024 10:03 AM INDEX NO. 505745/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 248 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024

At an IAS Term, Part 29 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at Civic Center, Brooklyn, New York, on the 3rd day of October 2024.

P R E S E N T:

HON. WAYNE SAITTA, Justice. ------------------------------------------------------------X EDUARDO MOLINA,

Plaintiff, Index No. 505745/2019

-against- MS #5 & MS #7 & MS #8

Order VENCHI 2, LLC, CENTRAL AREA EQUITIES ASSOCIATES, LLC., TRANSWORLD EQUITIES, INC., and EMPIRE RESTORATION CONSULTING CORP.,

Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------------X VENCHI 2, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff

-against-

EMPIRE RESTORATION CONSULTING CORP.,

Third-Party Defendant

--------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following papers read on this motion: NYSCEF Doc Nos Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/Affidavits (Affirmations) and Exhibits 116-132, 172-183, 191-207, 220 Cross-motions Affidavits (Affirmations) and Exhibits Answering Affidavit (Affirmation) 155-171, 208-211, 222-232, 233-238 Reply Affidavit (Affirmation) 212-216, 239-245 Supplemental Affidavit (Affirmation) _____________

It is ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his claim

pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) is Denied. The affidavit of Jaime Cebada Meza in which

1 of 5 [* 1] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2024 10:03 AM INDEX NO. 505745/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 248 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024

he states that Plaintiff fell from a ladder that he placed on top of the scaffold and leaned

against the wall, and that he and his co-employees told him not to do so, contradicts

Plaintiff’s testimony that the scaffold collapsed and is sufficient to raise a question of fact

as to whether there was a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). Plaintiff’s reliance on Jimenez

v. RC Church of Epiphany, 85 AD3d 974 [2d Dept 2011], is misplaced. In that case,

Plaintiff was instructed by his supervisors to place the ladder on top of the scaffold. The

fact that Meza’s name and address were not disclosed to Plaintiff despite a demand does

not preclude considering his affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

Whether Meza is permitted to testify at trial is a matter for the trial judge. Also, the

deposition testimony of Thomasz Fryc was that he viewed the scaffold on the day after the

accident and that it was intact contradicts Plaintiff’s claim that the scaffold collapsed; and

it is further,

ORDERED, that that portion of the motion of Defendants CENTRAL AREA

EQUITIES ASSOCIATES, LLC., and TRANSWORLD EQUITIES, INC., for summary

judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against them pursuant to Labor Law § 200 is

Granted. The accident involved the means and methods of construction rather than a

dangerous condition at the premises and Defendants CENTRAL and TRANSWORLD did

not supervise or control Plaintiff’s work; and it is further,

ORDERED, that that portion of the motion of Defendants CENTRAL AREA

EQUITIES ASSOCIATES, LLC., and TRANSWORLD EQUITIES, INC., for summary

judgment on their claims against Defendant VENCHI 2 LLC for contractual

indemnification is Denied, as the indemnification provision in the lease only requires

VENCHI 2 LLC to indemnify them to the extent that they are not reimbursed by insurance

and it is undetermined at this point whether Defendant CENTRAL’s insurer will

reimburse them for Plaintiff’s claims; and it is further 2

2 of 5 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2024 10:03 AM INDEX NO. 505745/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 248 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024

ORDERED, that that portion of the motion of Defendants CENTRAL AREA

EQUITIES ASSOCIATES, LLC., and TRANSWORLD EQUITIES, INC., for summary

judgment on their claims against Defendant EMPIRE RESTORATION CONSULTING

CORP. for contractual indemnification is Denied. There is no contract between CENTRAL

and EMPIRE, and the contract between EMPIRE and VENCHI required EMPIRE to

indemnify the owner of the property. There is a question of fact whether Defendant

CENTRAL AREA EQUITIES ASSOCIATES, LLC., or TRANSWORLD EQUITIES, INC. is

the owner of the property as the deed is in the name of a different, albeit similarly named,

entity.

ORDERED, that that portion of the motion of Defendants CENTRAL AREA

EQUITIES ASSOCIATES, LLC., and TRANSWORLD EQUITIES, INC., for summary

judgment on their claims against Defendant EMPIRE RESTORATION CONSULTING

CORP. for common law indemnification is Denied. Movant has not demonstrated that

EMPIRE was negligent; and it is further,

ORDERED, that that portion of the motion of Defendant VENCHI 2 LLC for

summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against it pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6)

is Denied. Movant did not address Plaintiff’s claims based on Industrial Code section 23-

5.1 through 23-5.7 in its original moving papers. It would be improper to consider

movants arguments as to those sections raised first in reply as Plaintiff has not had an

opportunity to respond to them; and it is further,

ORDERED, that that portion of the motion of Defendant VENCHI 2 LLC for

summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against it pursuant to Labor Law § 200

is Granted. The accident involved the means and methods of construction rather than a

dangerous condition at the premises and VENCHI 2 LLC did not supervise or control

Plaintiff’s work; and it is further, 3

3 of 5 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/07/2024 10:03 AM INDEX NO. 505745/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 248 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/07/2024

ORDERED, that that portion of the motion of Defendant VENCHI 2 LLC for

summary judgment on its claims against Defendant EMPIRE RESTORATION

CONSULTING CORP. for common law indemnification is Denied. There are questions of

fact whether Defendant EMPIRE was negligent; and it is further,

ORDERED, that that portion of the motion of Defendant VENCHI 2 LLC for

summary judgment on its claims against Defendant EMPIRE RESTORATION

CONSULTING CORP. for contractual indemnification is Denied. There were two

indemnification provisions submitted, one which was limited to Defendant EMPIRE’s

negligence and the other which covered liability arising out of or in connection to the

performance of the work, and did not depend on EMPIRE being negligent. The

indemnification provision which did not depend on EMPIRE being negligent was not

signed or authenticated. Thus, there are questions of fact as to which indemnification

provision governed and whether EMPIRE was negligent; and it is further,

ORDERED, that that portion of the motion of Defendant VENCHI 2 LLC for

summary judgment on its claims against Defendant EMPIRE RESTORATION

CONSULTING CORP. for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance is Denied.

There were two insurance provisions submitted, one which only required Defendant

EMPIRE to obtain insurance and the other which required EPMIRE to obtain insurance

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

Related

Jimenez v. RC Church of Epiphany
85 A.D.3d 974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 33556(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/molina-v-venchi-2-llc-nysupctkings-2024.