Morgan v. Holly St. Holding Corp.

2022 NY Slip Op 34844(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County
• Decided: February 24, 2022
• Docket: Index No. 515094/2018
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Morgan v Holly St. Holding Corp. 2022 NY Slip Op 34844(U) February 24, 2022 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 515094/2018 Judge: Peter P. Sweeney 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 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF t .- . .. DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

At an IAS Tenn) Part 73 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, N~,v York, on the 24 th day of February, 2022. PRESENT:

HON. PETER P. S\VEENEY, Justice. ~ " - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - -X Jrn lNNJJ-; !'vf ORGAt\,

PlaJntif!~

- again~t - Index. No. 515094/2018

HOI.L Y STREET HOLDING COKP., NOLA GE;-,.'ERAL Cm,TR,4,CflNG~ INC,, Ntw y ORK PAV I NG INC, )..l"AT[ON.4.. L GRlO GROUP PLC, NATlO:-,iAL GRTD PLC, STASl BROTHERS ASPHALT CORP.,

Defend ants, - - - - - - y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - • - - - - -X Hou,Y STREET HOLD!>JG CORP.,

Third. Party P laj n ti ff}

- against -

NOLA GENERAL Cot...,7RACTING, INC:., NEW YORK PAV Jr,..;G, INC., NATION,\L GRJD GROUP' PLC, XA. T[ONAL GK.fO, NATlO;-,,lAL GRID, PLC. ST,4.S! Bl{OTHERS ASPHALT CORP., JOI IN Drn-; 1-10 .. ' • f"j ,: ; (fictious persons). ABC CORP. 1-1 a(fktilious l f-- -~ -~ --.J entities), r~-\ -:_-I

Third•Party Defendants, - - - - - - - - - - ~ y - - - - - - - - - - - - - --X - - - - - - - y - -

Hou, y STREET HOLDING CORP.,

Second Third•Party Plaintif(

- agam~t -

HALLEN CONTRACTING CORPORATION,

Second ThirJ~Party Defendant, - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - -X

[* 1] 1 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

- - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - -X J-IOL.1.Y STREET HOLDJNG CORP.,

Third Third-Farly Plaintift~

- against --

LB.-1AZ[A CONSTRUCTIO?,;, INC.~

Third Third-Party Defendant, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - -X HOLLY STR~UT HOLDING CORP.,

f' ourth Third- Party Plaint 1ff~

LUIS A~D So:,: CONTR.-'\CTOR AND POWER CONCRETl: Co.,1Nc.

fourth Third- Party Defendants. _________ ~ _ - ~ ______ - - - - - w - - - - - - - - - - ~ -X HOLLY STREET HOLDI7\'G CORP.,

Fi!lh ThirdMParty Plaintiff,

- against-

POWER CONCRETR. Co., INC.

Fifth Third-Party Defend ant. • • • • • • • • • - • • ~ r - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ • • • • • • • • • •X

The rollowing e~filcd papers read herein: :'.'-JYSCF.F Doc Nos.

Notice or Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petitiorn'Cross I'vfotion and Affidavits (Affirmations) - - - ~ - - - - 102-112: 140-164: 208~239: 25 3-255: 27()-284 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations}._ _ __ 115-118, 119-122: 308-310: 285-295 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations). _ _ _ __ 123

[* 2] 2 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

Upon the foregoing papers in this personal injury action, defendant/third-party

c1efondani Stasi Brothers A.spl1alt Corp. (Stasi Brothers) moves (1n motion sequence

numb~r [mot. seq. no.] 4) for an on.l~r, pursuant to CPLR 3212, granting summary

judgment dismissing the action and any cross claims against it. Plaintiff Johnnie Morgan

(Mr. Morgan) mm'CS (in mot. seq. no. 5) for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3212~ granting

him partia~ ~mmmary ju

plaintiff/second~ third) fourth and fifth third-party plainttff Holly Street Holding Corp.

(Holly Street). HolJy Street cross-moves (in mot. seq. no. 7) for an order, pursuant to CPLR

3212, granling it summary judgment and dismissing the action against it. Second third-

party defondant Ha.Hen Contrnuing Corporation. (Hal1en) moves (in ml"Jt. seq. no. S) for an

order, pursuanl to CPLR 3211 and 3404, dismissing Mr. Morgan's amended rnmplaint.

Mr. Morgan cross-moves (in mot. seq. no. 10) for an order, pur.-,;uanl CPLR 3025 (b) and

203 (f), granting him leave to amend his complaint to add Hallen as a direct defendant and

deeming Mr. Mmgan)s amended cmnplaint timel)' ftkd an

Background

At 8:00 p.m. on January 2~ 2018, Mr. Morgan was wa]king on the sjdnvalk adjacent

to Liden Boulevard in Rrooklyn, N e\V York, when he approached a restaurant located at

2526 Linden Boulevard (the Prcmi~e~). Hclly Street is the Qwne.r of the Premises. As Mr .

Morgan turned into the parking lot of the Premises, he allegt:dly tripped and foll on an

uneven lift betvveen tht: sidewalk and parking lot (the Incident), As a consequence of the

Incident} Mr. Morgan alleges he suffered various injuries .

....)

[* 3] 3 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

Mr. Morgan thereafter comrnenceJ the instant Javvsuit ,vith tht filing of the

summons and verified complajnt ort July 24, 20 I 8 against HolJy Street, asserting a

negligence cause of action. Ho11y Street appeared with a verified ans\ver asse1ting genera]

September 25, 2019, Holly Street commenced its first third-party action. Shortly

thereafter, on October 7, 2019, Holly Street filed an amended third-party complaint,

asserting claims for negligence, failing lo procure insurance, contribution, an

indemnification against third-party defendants Nola General Contrading, Inc. (Nola), Nev,,.·

York Pavjng, Inc. (NY Paving), National Grid [sic], National Grid Group, PLC, National

Grid~ PLC (co11ectivcly. National Grid), m1d Stasi Brothers. Holly Street alleges that prior

to \lye 1ncident~ \hesc thir

patched, or otherwise a]tered the area \vherc the lm:ident aIIegedly occurred. On October

lO~ 2019) Mr. Mmgan amend~ hi~ r.;.0mplaint~ adding Nola) NY \>aving 1 Natkma.l Grid

Group, PLC, National Grid: PLC, and Stasi Brothers as first-party defendants and asserting

negligence causes of action against each.

NY Paving appeared in the action \Vith service of an answer to the amended third-

pMty complaint on October 21: 2019, and an an.swcr to the amended complaint on October

22) 2019. On November 8~ 2019, Stasi 13rothcrs served an answer to the amended third-

party complairtt, raising various affirmative

Holly Streets, Nola~ NY Paving~ National Grid Group~ PLC, National Grid, PLC, sounding

in negligence and jndcmnifica1ion. Stasi Brothers then served an answer responding to J'V1r.

[* 4] 4 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

Morgan~s amended complaint: asserting general denials, affirmmiv~

claims against Holly Streets, Nola} NY Paving~ National Grid Group PLC, N attona1 Grid

PLC, sounding in negligence, contribution, and indemni ficalion.

On January 2, 2020, Nationa] Grid served an ans\ver to the amended thir

complaint and pleaded cross claims and counterclaims against Mr. Morgan~ Holly Street,

Nola, NY Paving, and Stasi Brothers sounding in negligence, breach of contract,

contribution, and indemnification. The following day) on January 3, 2020, National Grid

served [ts answer to the amended complaint, likewise pkadjng cross claims and

counterclaims against Nlr. Morgan. Holly Street~ Nola) NY Paving, and Stasi Brothers

sounding in neg] igcnce~ breach of conlract) {:Ontribution, and indemnification. 1 On May

26~ 2020, ~ola served its answer to tbc amended third-party complaint and pleaded cross

cJaims sounding in negligence an

PLC, National Grid, PLC, and Stasi Brothers. On May 27) 2020, Nola filed its ansv,'er to

the amended complaint also pleading cross claims sounding in negligence and contribution

against NY Paving, NationaJ Grid Group, PI .C, National Grid, PLC, and Stasi Brothers.

Thereafter, on April 23, 2021, Holly Street commenced a second third-party action

,vith the filing of a summons and second third-pa11y complaint against Hallen. Holly Street

a]kged Ballen excavated) repaired, resurfaced, rnmpcd, patched, or otherwise altered the

area where the Incident alleged]y occmreJ and asserted causes of action for negligt:nce,

1 National Grid notes in its answers that its proper name is T11e BroaklyH Union Gas Company

d/b/a National Grid NY. 5

[* 5] 5 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

failing to procure insurance) contribution, and indemnification against H aHen. On May 20~

2021, Holly Street commenced a third third-party adion against third third-party defendant

Lcmazia Construction, Inc. (Lcmaz.ia) asserting the. same allcg,ati

as it did in it prior third-party actions.

On June 2, 2021, Hallen served an ansv,rer to HoHy Street's second third-party

rnmplaint :md asserted counterclaims against Holly Street for indemnification nn

negligence. On the same day, Stasi Brothers filed certain papers seeking to assert cross

daims againsl Hallen antl Lem"dzia for negligence and indemni-fication. Additionally, on

June 2, 2021, Holly Street also commenced its fourth third-party a~ticm against fourth thfrdM

pmty defendant Luis and Son Contractor~ asserting causes of action for negligence, failing

to procure irtsurance, contribution, and indemnification. The follow1ng day, Holly Street

filed an amended fomth third-party summons and complaint naming Power Concrete Co.,

1nc. as an additional fourth third-party defendant. Stasi Brothers again filed certain papers

seeking to assert cross claims against fourth third-party defendant Power Concrete Co.)

Inc., for neg Iigence and indemnification,

On July 1, 2021 ~ Hol1y Street commenced a fiflh third-paity action, naming Pawer

Concrete Co.: Inc. as a ti fth third-party defendant and pleading causes of adion for

negligence, failing to procure insurance, contribution: and indemnification. Follovving this:

on July 16, 2021, Mr. Morgan filed a third ami;ndcd complaint, naming Hall en and Power

Cor1crete Co._, Inc. as first-party defendants and assertjng negligence causes of action

[* 6] 6 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

against each. 2 Nola, National Grid, and Stasi Ilrothers thereafter served ansv,,•ers to the

third amended complaint on July 28~ 2021, August 3, 2O2 l~ and August 12, 2021,

respectively.

Stasi Brothers nmv moves~ in mot. seq, no. 4~ for summary 3u

the action and any cross clajms against it. Mr. Morgan moves, in mot. seq. no. 5, for partial

summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to Holly Street) and~ in mot. seq.

no. 10~ for leave to amend his com plaint to add I lallen as a direct defendant and

amended complaint fiJed on July I 6, 2021, as timely filt:d and served n.unc pro tune. Holly

Street moves, in mot. seq. no. 7, for summary judgment dismissing the action against it.

Hallen moves, in mot. seq. no. 8, f'br dismissal of l'v1r. Morgan's amended complaint.

Motign_to Dismiss and Motion to Amend

The Parties' Positions

Hallen seeks dismissal of Mr. Morgan's third amended complaint on the basis that

the statute of !imitations nm prior to the commencement of the action against it. Hallerl

argues that i\ ew York law requires personal injury actions be brought within three years of 1

the alleged OC(;urrence of the injury, 1t asserts that the third amended complaint alleges lht:

Incident took pla~e on January 2, 2018, thus Mr. Morgan was ob] igatcd to commence his

action aga[nst it on or before January 2~ 2O2 l _ Hallcn proffers the thirJ amended com plaint

and its accompanying atlidav.it of service, \Vhich demonstrates that the summons and third

~ The record is devoid of any second urn.ended complaint. Mr. Morgan fikd the initial summon~ and complaint on July 24, 2018~ a supplemental summons and amended complaint on October 10, 2019: and a supplemental summons and amended complaint on July 16, 2021. 7

[* 7] 7 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

amended complaint were not filed until July 16~ 202 I and service of process was not

et1cctuated until July 26, 2021. Hallcn contends that the filing and service of the third

amended complaint is well beyond the expiration of the lhree-ycar statute of limitations.

Accordingly) Halkn maintains Mr. Morgan's act[on against it must be dismissed pursuant

to the running of the statute of Hmitations. In addition~ I l al Ien contends that should the

court find the action was timely filed, it respectfully seeks an ex tens ion of t[mc to serve

responsive pleadings to the third amended complaint.

Mr. Morgan rejects Hall~n:s contentions that the action against it was commenced

after the statute of ]imitations expired, and cross-moves for lea\'C to amend the complaint

to add HaHcn as a first-party defendant. Mr. Morgan initially argues that his third ame11ded

complaint was timely served as the statute oflimitations was tolled for a period of 228 days

due to a series of Executive Orders issued by the former Governor of Ne"' York in response

to the COVID-19 pandemic. He asserts thal pursuant to these Executive Orders, the

applicable statute of limitations did not expire until August 18, 2021) thereby rendering his

action against Hall en timely.

Mr. Morgan also presents that despite the tolling statute of limitations and timeliness

of the third amended complaint, the relation back doctdnc equally protects the action

against dismissal on the basis Df statute of Umitations. He highlights both procedural and

case law supporting his contention that HaHen haJ timely notice- of the occurrence of the

Incident giving rise to the aJlcgations asserted in the third amended complaint due to the

fad that HoHy Strcefs third-party action against I-fallen was timely commenced. Therefore,

[* 8] 8 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

those claims presented by Mr. Morgan against Hallcn are deemed inkrposed at the time of

Holly Street's third-party action against Hallen. FinaUy, Mr. Morgan asserts HaHen will

nDt be prejudiced by being named fl first-party defendant in the acrjon. Importantly, Hallen

has not raisl"::d any potential 11rejudice an

responsive pleadJngs, Accordingly, Mr. Morgan maintains that he is entJtled lo amend his

complaint and tl1at the previously served third amended compl aj nt shouJd be deemed

lJmcly served m.mc pro tune.

J)iscussion

CPLR 3025 provides that "a party may amend his pleading once without leave of

court within twen't.y day ~ aner its service~or at any thnc before the period for responding

to it expires>nr \Vithin t,venty days after ~rvice of a pleading resporn:Hng to ,t:• CPLR

1009 augments tbis rule al1owir1.g furtht:r amended complaints \\·· here a defendant

commences a third-party action. ln such instances, a pJaintiff may ·~amend his com pl aiot

,vithout leave of court" within twenty days of service of the thir

l 009). However. absent these circumstances or stipulation by all parties, a plaintiff must

st::ek leave from the court to amend his complaint (see CPLR 3025 (b]). ~-Le3ve to amend

a pk.a.ding ~s to he freely g,i--Jen ;,.;,'here ... there is no showing or preju

the nonmoving party, and no showing, that the l1rDDOSed amendment is ·palpably

insufficient as ~1 matter of Javv' or ~totally devoid of merit' ( Consolidated Payroll Servs. ,

Inc. v Berk, 18 AD3d 415, 415 [2d Dept 2005]. quoting Ogivie v ?vkDonaf 's Corp., 294

AD2d 550, 551 [2d Dept 2002] j internal citations omittt:d]).

[* 9] 9 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

"~ A claim asserted in an amended plead tng is- deemed to have been interposed at the

time the claims in the original pleading were interposed) unJess the original pkading lloes

not gi vt: notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series. of transactions or Ol:currenccs)"

(One West Bank /',/.A. v l'vfuller, 189 AD3d 853. 855 f2

\\/here an amended complaint is. served subsequent to the expiration of that statute of

Jimitations, such action shall be deemed timt:ly where the ddendn.nt has sufficient notice

(see generally Sally v Keyspan Hnergy Corp.) 106 AD3d 894, 896-897 l2d Dept 2013]).

"A plaintiffs direct daim against a lttird-party de.fendanl} \vhk-h h ass~rted \t1 an amended

complaint~ relates back to the service of the third-party complaint ... for the purposes. of

the Statute of Limitations, when the third-party wmplaint and the amended complaint arc

based upon the same trnnsactjons or occurrences" (Schuler v Grand Metro Bldg. Corp.~

118 AD2d 63 3, 63 5 [2d Dept 1986]; see also Duffy v Horton Mem. Hosp., 66 I\"Y2d 4 73,

477-4 78 [ 1985] ~ Deputron v A & J Tours, Inc., 93 AD3 d 629, 629~630 [2d Dept 2012 J).

Actions St:t:king to recover damages for personal injuries must be commenced

within t.hret:-years of the alleged occurrence causing tJ1e injury (CPLR 214 [5] ). As a

consequence of the COVID-19 global panJem ic the former Governor of New York issucd

severa] Executive Orders tolling the statute of limitations from March 20, 2020 to

November 3, 2020 (see Brash v Richards, 195 AD3d 582, 583-585 [2d Dept 2021"1; see

also Executive Order [A. Cuomo] Nos. 202.14 l9 NYCRR 8.202.14]~ 202.28 [9 NYCRR

8.202.281, 202.38 [9 NYCRR 8.202.38].. 202.48 [9 NYCRR 8.202.48], 202.55 [9 NYCRR

8.202.551, 202.55.1 (9 NYCRR 8.202.55.11. 202.60 [9 NYCRR 8.202.60t 202.67 l9

[* 10] 10 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

NY CRR 8.202 .6 7], 202. 72 [9 NYCRR 8 .202. 72]). ::A toll docs not c-xtcnd the statute of

limitations indcfi nitely hut merely suspends the running of the applicable statute of

limitations for a finite and ... the period of the toll is excluded from the cakulalion of th~

time in which the p]aintiff can commence an action" (Bermudez Chavez v Occidental

Chem. Cmp.• 35 NY3d 492, 505 n 8 [2020], rearg denied sub nom. Chavez v Occidental

Chem. Corp., 3 6 NY3 d 962 [2021 ]).

Here, J\1r. Morgan was required to seek leave from the court prior to serving his

third amended pleading naming Hallen as an additional first-parly defendant. Holly Street

commenced a timely third-party action against Hallcn on ApriJ 23, 2021, with service of

process completed on April 26, 2021, requiring Mr. Morgon to amend his complaint on or

before May 13. 2021, to amend his complaint without leave of the court. Hm:vcvcr, Mr.

Morgan did not commence his action until July l 6) 2021) and service of process on l 1allen

was not completed until July 26. 2021.

However~ despik this delay seeking the instant re1ief, Mr. Morgan has demonstrated

cntitJcmcnt for leave to amend his complaint to name Halkn as a first-party defendant. His

proposed amended pleading is not, on its face) palpably insufficient as a matter of lav,,. or

totaHy devoid of merit. Further. as Holly Streef s third-party action was timely commenced

against Hallen: the relation back doctrine insulates Mr. Morgan's third-amended compfaint

from being time-barred, as Hall en had notice of potential claims against it \,'ith the service

of the third-party complaint by Holly Street Finally, Haikn presents no bas[s nor asserts

any prejudice it may experience from being nmn~d a first-party defendant in the instant

[* 11] 11 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

action. Accordingly, Mr. Morgan's motion to amend the complaint (mot. seq. no. 10) is

granted, The Third AmendeJ Verified Complaint 1n the proposed form annexed to the

moving papers (NYSCEF Doc No. 282) shall be dt:emed served upon the parties upon

service of a copy of this order \Vith a notice of entry. Hall en's motion (mot. seq. no. 8) is

granted to the extent its time to ans\vcr the Thi rd Amended Verified Complaint is extended

to 21 days from such service of the order with notice of entry.

l\1otions for Summary Judgment

Stasi Brothers' Motion

Stasi Brothers argues that it is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the action

against it, asserting that the proffered evj dence establishes that~ as a matter of law, it cannot

be found liable for Mr. Morgan's alleged injuries. Supporting this contention, Stasi

Ilrothers principally relies on the affidavit of Ms. Diane Posillico (M~. Posillico ). Ms.

Posmico attests that in her ~apacity as Human Resources Manager for Stasi I3rothi::rs, she

is responsible for maintaining office fiks and generating proposals and invoices. She avers

that she perfontie

have perfonned at the Premises. revealing two proposals prepared for Ho11y Street, .dated

July 2011 and March 2014. The July 2011 work proposal provided that the work to be

perfonned \Vas to "overJay cement with 2" NYS DOI asphalt. Power roll with 7 ton roller

(approx. 3500 sq. f)" (NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEfo] Doc No. 112. Ms. Posillico aff at

6). The March 2014 work proposal provided that the \vork to be perfonncd was to "sm-v

[* 12] 12 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

cut, remove old asphalt) install base as needed, install T: NY"S hot mix asphalt) compact

inside lot 70' x 2~[,] Patch area inside lot jn front of buildingL] Mill S[dc road 76' x 3 'LJ

S\vccp road clean[,] pave \vith t~ NYS typt; Asphalt[~] compact with 5-7 ton vihratory

rollerl,J liquid ale edges" (id. at 8). She attests that her search revealed no further

documents concerning Stasi Brothers and the Premises. Based upon the absence of any

additional documents. specifically the absence of work orders~ Jnvo [ccs, and payment

records, Ms. Posillico concluded that Stasi I3rothers did not perform any work at the

Premises. Ms. Posillico also ave1Ted that she intcrvie\ved the work foreman ,vho confirmed

that no work was performed at the subject location.

Stas.i Bratl1ers rnaintains that M~. P(1$illk(\'s affidavit and the p.rnfforcd prnpoSc.als

demonstrate that it never performed any maintenance work, repair \vork, or any other

services at the Premises which would result in it creating the alleged defect. A.-.:cordingly,

Stasj Brothers insists that it demonstrated its entitlement to summary judgement dismissing

the act1on against it.

In opposition~ Mr. Morgan argues that the evidence presented is insufficient to

demonstrate Stasi Broth~r_.,' entitlement to accelerated judgment and contends that the

motion is premature as substantial discovery remain5 outstanding in the action. Mr.

Morgan asserts that Ms. Posillico' s affidavit js jnsufficient to demonstrate Srn.si Brothers'

prima facie case as it is concJusory, self-serving~ and relies on hearsay evidence. Mr.

Morgan specifically contends that he must be afforded the opportunity to depose and learn

the identity of the \vork foreman referenced by Ms. Posillico. Additionally, Mr. Morgan

[* 13] 13 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

reasons that as Ms. Posillico ~ s search revealed nvo \.vork proposals concerning over] aying

cement and removing old asphalt at the Premises~ the existence of such \Vork proposals

suggests that Stasi Brothers may have performed work at the Premises \Vhkh created the

defect causing hi~ iti.judes. Mr. Morgan accmdin.gly argu.~s that since he has not had fue

opportunity to depose Stasj Brothers or perform other substant[vc discovery concerning

Stasi Brothers~ alieged involvement in sidewalk repairs at the Pn:mises, the motion must

be denied pending further discovery.

Holly Street Hkevvise opposes Stasi Brothers: motion, asserting substantially s.imiJar

arguments as Mr. Morgan. Holly Stred also proffered th~ affidavit of its President, Frank

Lapetina. Mr. Lapetina attests that Holly Street accepted the March 2014 \Vork proposal,

which \.Vas for work to be completed for driveway work. 1le avers that Stasi 13rothcrs

completed the work and accepted cEtsh payment for it. Holly Street accordingly maintains

that Mr. Lapetina' s affidavit creates questions of fact as to whether Stasi Brothers' work

created the allege defect, preventing entry of summary judgment in favor of Stasi Brothers.

In repJy, Stas.i Brothers rejects the arguments presented by Mr. Morgan and 1-IoHy

Street. It contends that its proffered evidence is sufficient to estabI 1sh its prima facie case

and that precedent supports its position that the lack of records is admissible evidence

demonstrating that an alleged fact or event did not occur. Stasi Brothers also advances that

the affidavit of Mr. Lapetina is inadmissible and shou]d not be given any evidentiary ,veight

as. it is ccm.clusmy and fa\\'.:> to teforenc.e or e,;.h,hh any support111g documentary e>videnc.e

establishing his dairns that Stasi Brothers performed \-VOrk at the Premises. finally~ Stasi

[* 14] 14 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

Brothers maintain that the action is ripe f'br summary judgement as to its liability and that

Mr. Morgan failed to offer any t:vident[ary basis supporting his assertions that further

discovery is required or that it would lead to relevant evidence defeating Stasi Brothers'

defense. Accordingly, Stasi Brothers urges the court to grant summary judgment in its

fa\'Or.

Mr. l\1organ and Holly Street's Motions

Mr. Morgan argues that he is en1.itled to summary judgment on the ·[ssuc of liabt1i ty

as against 1Io11y Street. Supporting his position, l'vlr. Morgan submits his deposition

testimony, a persona] affidavit, images of the accident location~ an

engineering expert, Anthony Pici, P .E. Mr. Morgan contends that his deposition and

affidavit establish thal the Tncident occurred at the Premises and was caused by an uneven

section of asphalt ben:veen the sidewalk and drivev,,.ay. Dudng his deposition) Mr. Morgan

specifically testified that he ''was v.:alking to come into the parking lot to make that tum lo

go in and I tripped and fell" (Mr. Morgan tr at 46, line~ 23-25). He averred in his affidavit

that ,:I Jooked at the ~bump' on the sidewalk where I tripped after I had fallen dov,,:n to the

ground. The bump \Vas over an inch high" (Mr. Morgan aff at •· 8). I-fo maintains that

c.ertai.n Gc.ic.iglc Map images depk.ting, th.e subjed lncatk.m demonstrate \.hat the defective

condition existed since September 2013. He asserts that as the defective condition vvas

apparent and visible in these imo.gcs, that it t!."::.tablishes the defect has existed since

September 2013, thereby providing Holly Street with constructive notice of the defect,

obligating it to remedy it.

[* 15] 15 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

Mt. Morgan also submits Mr. Pici's expert affidavit \Vhich concludes that the

proximate cause of his injuries v,:as the one-inch bump in the sidev,,.alk bet\veen the

drivevvay. Mr. Pici further avc:rred that the side\valk v.-as improperly maintained and unsafe

for use~ and that the lift constituted a significant vertical height dt fference at the subject

lo~ation. He opined .. with a reasonable degree of engirn:tring certainty that the defective

sidev,•alk area and the 'bump• as identified by Mr. Morgan ... constituted a dangerous

tripping hazard ... [was] visible to the mvners of the property for a number of years ...

and no action was taken by the o"vner to have the condition addressed,, (NYSCEfi' Doc No.

161, l\1r. Pici,s aff at 9 -10, ~~ 46 - 47). finally, Mr. ~lorgan notes that Holly Street

admitted to ownership of the Premises, \Vhich subjects it to a non-delegable duty lo

maintain its property and sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. He insists that the

proffered evidence demonstrates that HoHy Street breached this duty by allov1dng the

significant vertical height differential to exist, despite it being apparent Jnd there being

sufficient time lo remedy it. Accordingly, Mr. Morgan claims he has demorn;trated his

prim a facic case, entitling him to summary judgment on the issue of Iiabi Iity as against

HoJly Street.

Holly Street rejects Mr. Morgan, s position, asserting lhat it, not Mr. Morgan, is

entit]ed to summary judgment. HoUy Street argues that Mr. Morgan foiled to demonstrate

his pritna facic case establishing that the alleged defect was the proximate cause of his

injuries or that the alleged defect even constituted a dangerous rnndition. It <1rgues that the

proffered photographic evidence fails to disp]ay an actionable defect an

[* 16] 16 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

testimonies and his expert evidence fi:1il lo demonstrate that the alleged defect was the

proximate cause of his injurie~.

Holl v Street contends that while there is no bright 1ine rule for whether an uneven

sidewalk constitutes a dangnous condition, that precedent clearly establishes that the

alleged defect) the orn:-inch lift that existed at the Premises, constitutes a trivial defect, and

therefore is not actionable. Holly Street principally relies on its cng.inccrjng t:xpert

Ttrrence J. Fearon, P.E. Mr. Fearon providt:d that "the concrete sidewalk flags in the

reported area of Plaintiff's accident were properly mainlained ... [and Mr. Fearon] did not

detect any ... tripping hazards due to excessive heigh differentials bet\veen adjacent

sidewalk flags ... 1Mr. Fearcm] did not detect any substantial defects ,vith the side,valk

flags" (NYSCEI-1 Doc No. 238, Mr. Fearon's Expert Report at 16-17).

Holly Street maintains that Mr. Fearon 's expert report con cl usivdy establishes that

there ,vas no actionable defect at the Premises causing Mr. Morgan's injurtcs. It also

asserts that Mr. Morgan~s expert affidavit must be rejected as lvlr. Pici did not perform a

site inspection~ take any measurements~ and his afiidavit is based upon pure speculation,

exclusively relying on Mr. Morgan's s,..vorn statements that a height differential of one inch

existed. Further~ Holly Street contends that there is no admissible evidence establishing

that Mr. Morgan confronted a height differential which constituted a dangerous condition.

It urges the court to reject his self-serving afiidavit which. for the first time~ introduced the

assertion that the Incident was caused by an uplift in the sidewalk greater than one lnch.

Holly Street also raises the issue of prematurity ~oncerning Mr. Morgan· s motion, asserting

[* 17] 17 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

that none of the defendant's depositions have occurred and accordingly, his motion is

premature.

In opposition and reply, Mr. Morgan principally reasserts his positions presented in

his moving papers and argues that Holly Street's cross-motion fails to raise a triable issue

of fact defeating his prim a facie case. I-le also urges the court to reject Holly Strccf s expert

materials, asserting that they are unsupported by the record and are conclusory in nature.

Additionally, Mr. Morgan contests HoIJy Street's arguments that his affidavit is improper.

In this regard, he contends that he was never directly asked about any h~ight difforential

during his deposition. Mr. Morgan also submits a supplemental expert affidavit from Mr.

Pici wherein he rebuffs Mr. Fearon' s observations, opining that Mr. Fearon' s conclusions

cannot be reJied upon

bis findings are inconsistent with good construction practice. Finally~ ?vtr. Morgan argut:s

that Iloily Street'~ a~serlions that his motion for summary judgment is premature must be-

disregarded as it fails to identify any material issues of fact a witness may tcsti fy to or any

evidence within the exclusive control of another party that is not presently availabk.

Accordingly, Mr. Morgan maintains that his motion for summary judgment on the issue of

liability should be granted and Holly Street's motion denied.

Holly Street submits further reply asserting thal Mr. Morgan improperly presented

new evidence in his reply and that Mr. Pici's opinions fail to defeat its prima focie showing

or demon.strale Mr. Morgan~s entitlement to summary judgment. Accordingly, Holly

[* 18] 18 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

Street maintains that Mr. Morgan's motion must be denied and that an order granting it

summary judgment be entered.

Discussion

On a motion for summary judgment the courf s function j s issue finding, not issue

determination (see Trto Asbestos Removal Carp. v Gabriel & Sciacca Certified Pub.

Accountants, LLP, 164 AD3d 864, 865 [2d Dept 20181 [int'!rnal citations omitted]).

"Summary judgment is a drastic remedy not to he used if there is any doubt that a triable

issue or fact exists'' (Cunningham ·v Gen. Elec . Credit Corp., 96 AD2d 502, 502 [2d Dept

J 9831). "'NcgJjge:nC'-~ ca.s!;;S by rhefrvery nature do not usually lend themselves to summary

j u

very question of negl igern:e is itself a question for jury determination'•• (Davis v Com mack

Hotel, LLC\ 174 A03d 501, 502 [2d Dept 20 l 9J quoting Ugarriza v Schmieder: 46 NY2d

471, 474 [1979]). ~~A party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that ·the

cause of action or defense shall be established sufficiently to ,varrant the court as a matter

of law in directing judgment"' in the moving party s favor" (Jacobsen i-· Aew York City 1

!fealth & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824) 833 [2014], quoting CPLR 3212 [b]). i~fTlhe

proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima focie showing of entitlement

to judgment as a matter of lmv) tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence

of any material issues of fact" (A !vaYez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [ 1986]

[internal citations omitted]). Once the movant sets forth a ptima foci c case, the burden of

going forv.·ard shifts to the opponent of the motion to produce evidentiary proof in

[* 19] 19 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

admissible fom1 suffi cicnt to establish the existence of a matt rial iss.ue u f fi.lct (see

Zuckerman v Cily oflv'ew York~ 49 NY2d 5 57, 5 57 [ I 9 80]). lt is v..-tll established that \vhere

there is competing expert evidence submitted by adversaries) summary judgment is not

appropriate and the credibility of the experts must be resolved by the trier of fact (.see

generally O 1Brien v Port Auth. of N. Y. & j\/.J, 29 NY3 d 2 7 [2017]; S(N also Cummings v

Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 147 AD3d 902, 904 1_2

519 [2d Dept 2005}; but cf Zimmer v Chemung County Performln.g Arts~ 65 NY2d 5 l 3

[1985]).

AdditionaUy, i~cPLR 3212 (f) permits a party opposing summary judgment to

0bt.a.1n for\.her discovery when it appears tha1. facts supporting the posidon of the opposing

party exist but cannot be stated" (Juseinoski v A1ew York Hosp. /vied. Ctr. of Queens, 29

AD3d 636) 637 [2d Dept 2006] [lntcrnal citations omitted]). "This is espedaJly so \.Vhe-re

\h~ ~Jp-p-0siug. party has not had a rea~onahk opportunity for disclosure prior to the making

of the motion:' (Singh v Avfs Rent A Car iSys., Inc.: 119 AD3 d 768, 770 [2d Dept 2014]

[internal quotation marks and citations omitted J). ::A party who contends that a summary

judgment n1"0ti0n if. premature h required to demonstrate that d.iscnvcry might \ead tD

relevant evidence or the facts c-ssentia] to justify opposition lo the motion were exclusively

\v[thin the know]edgc and control of the movant" (Santiago v City of.New York~ l 91 A03d

715 [2d Dept 202 l] tintern.al quotati0n mm'k.s and citations, omitteu )). ~~The mere hope Di-

spccuJation that evidence sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment may be

uncovered during the discovery process is an insufficit:nt basis for denying" a motion for

[* 20] 20 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

summary judgment on the basis that it is premature (Lazarre v Gragston~ 164 AD3 d 574:

575 [2d Dept 2018]).

"Section 7-210 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York imposes a

nondelcgable duty on a property o\vner, exclusive oi' one-, t\vo-, and three.family O\Vner-

occupied homes, to maintain and repair the sidewalk abutting its property, and specificaUy

imposes liability upon those property O\Vncrs for injuries resulting from a violation of the

code provision" (,Micha/ska v Coney ls. Site 1824 House.s, Inc., 155 AD3d 1024) 1025 [2d

Dept 2017] [internal cJtations omitted]). The provision docs not impose strict liabj lity,

rather fo1bi1Hy will only be imputed ,vhere the injured party has demonstrated the material

ekments of negligence: ( l) the existence of a duty on the defendant's part as to the plaintjff~

(2) a breach of th1s duty, and (3) a rcsultlng injury to the plaintiff (see Nisimova v City of

}'vbv York, 145 AD3d 1023 ~ 1023-1024 f2d Dept 2016] [internal citations omilkd_D. "Prior

to the adoption of section 7-210, property mvners in Nc,v York City had a statutory duty .

. . Co 'install, construct~ rt:pave~ reconstruct and rt>:pair the sidewalk tla 61S in front of or

abutting such property'' (Vucetovic v Epsom Downs, Inc., 10 NY3d 517, 519 [2008],

quolingAdministrativc Code of City of N.Y. § 19-152 [al). ••Fai1urc to comply with [this

directiv~1resulted in fines or an obligation to reimburse the City for its expenses incurred

1n perfoHning the ncces..'l-.cJI)' work, bur not tort Jfab.ility'' (id [.internal citations omitted]; see

also Vrabel v City ofN'ew York, 308 AD2d 443,444 [2d Dept 2003] ["Administrative Code

of City of N.Y. § I 9-152 does nol ~xpressly impose liubility for injur[es resulting from a

breach of the duty to maintain the public sidewalk"]).

[* 21] 21 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

Nevertheless Section I 9-152 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York

has aided the court in determining whether an alleged dangerous e-ondition is a non-

actionable trivial defect (see generally Harakidas v City of l'l./ew York, 86 AD3d 624, 626

[2d Dept 20111). ..Property (w,,ners . . . may not be held liab]e f'or trivial defects, not

constituting a trap or nuisance, over 1rvhich a pedestrian might merely stumble, stub his or

her toes, or trip': ( .Milewski v Washington lldut., inc.~ 88 ADJ d 853. 85 5 f2d Dept 2011]

[internal citations omittedJ). i~[I]n determining the issue of triviality one must examine all

tbc facts presented, including the width, depth, e]evation) irreguJarhy, and appearance of

the defect along \vith the time, place, and circumstances of the injury': (Sanna v Wal-j\{art

Stores, Inc., 271 AD2J 59 5~ 595 [2d Dept 20001, citing Trincere v County of Sifffolk~ 90

NY2

defines ::a substantial defocC as a trip hazard~ Vl>·here the ~-vertical grade differential

bet \Veen adjacent sidevvalk flags is greater than or equal to one half inch or where a

sidewalk flag contains one or more surface defects of one inch or greater in all horizontal

directions and is one half inch or more in depth~~ (Administrative Co

{4]). ..Genera11y, whether a dangerolls or defectjve condition exists d~p~nds on the

particular facts of each case, and is properly a question of fact for the jury un kss the defect

is trivial as a matter of lav/• (Das v Sun Wah Rest., 99 AD3d 752~ 754 [2d Dept 20121

[internal quotatjon marks and citation omitted]).

Liabi]ity for a dangerous condition on a puhl ic sidewalk may also be impukd on

parties other than the adjacenl property owner. "[A] contractor may be liable for an

[* 22] 22 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

affim1ative act of negligence that results in the creation of a dangerous condition upon a

public street or sidewaJk" (Zarin v City ofNew York~ 137 AD3d l 116~ l 1 l 7 l2d Dept 2016]

[internal citations omitted]). \Vhere there are allegations that a contractor performed work

on a public side\va!k which created a dangerous condition and cause injury: to be cnt[tled

to summary judgment dismissing the action. the contractor must demonstrate that "it did

not perform any ,;,.vork on the portion of the roadway wher~ the accident ocrnrred or that it

did not create the allegedly defective condition that <;aused the plaintiffs injuries"

(Downing v J Anthony Enterprises, Inc .• 189 AD3d 1541, 1542 [2d Dept 20201 finternal

citations omilled J).

Here, none of the moving defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Stasi

Brothers' motion (mot. seq. n(). 4) is premature and further discovery must occur to af'for

the non-moving parties .sufficient opportunity to uncover relevant material information.

The core position of Stasi Brothers: motion is that it did not O\Ve a duty to Mr. Morgan as

it did not perform any \vork at the Premises. As demonstrated by the opposition, no

significant discovery has occurred regarding Stasi Brothers: particularly whether it

ptrformed any work at the Premises. Critically, no depositions of any defendants,

including Stasi Brothers, have taken place. Stasi Brothers• agent, Ms. Posi Ilico) attests that

her search of Stasi Rrothers' records revealed t \VO \Vork proposals for projects relating to

paving at the Premises. Mr. Lapetina, Ho11y Strccf s President, averred that Stasi Brothers

perforn1ed work at the subject location. Finally) Ms. Posiliico also provided that she had a

conversation with an unidentified work foreman to dctcrm ine if any work was complete at

[* 23] 23 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

the Premises. None of these irn:liddmds have be-en deposed; nor has then"' been s;gnificmJt

paper discovery concerning Holly Street and Stasi Brothers' records. Therefore, summary

judgment is premature. This determination is not based on mere hope or speculation

presented by Mr. Morgan or IIolly Street~ but rather pursuant to, and supported by, the

proffered evidence presented by all the parties. Indeed~ such evidence revealed proposed

projects Elt the Premis~s, acccptanc~ and com pletiun of wurk performed at the Premises,

and the revelation of an unidentified individual who allegedly has knowledge of whether

work was performed by Stasi Brothers at the Premises. Therefore, further discovery must

occur concerning these {:riticai and material facts prior to dete;nnining Stasi Brothers'

entitlement to accelerated judgment. Accordingly, mot. seq. no. 4 is denied with leave to

renew at the close of discovery.

Turning to Mr. Morgan and Holly Slreet's motions for summary judgment (mot.

sc-q. nos. 5 and 7, re...•,pecfrveJy), c-.ach movant pmfftsed expert tm1terjaJs in support of their

position. Additionally, there are no questions. of fact as to whether a duty was owed to Mr.

Morgan by Holly Street, as the

owned the Premises) and Nev,.1 York Cily Adminlstrative Code. Thus, unlike Stasi

Brothers~ motion, the circumstances and evidence proffered by both parties demonstrate

iliat these motions are not premature-. How~ver, though not premawre, questions of fact

preclude the granting of either movanfs summary judgment motion. The trier of fact must

detem1ine ,vhether Holly Street breached Hs duty or if a dangerous condition existed at the

time of the Incident.

[* 24] 24 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

Contrary to both parties' contentions, neither experts' submission is con cl usory or

unsupported by the record. Mr. Pici opines, based upon his review of photographic

evidence and the swom statements of Mr. Morgan, that a vertical height differentia] existed

at the Premises which represented a dangerous condition that was the proximate cause to

Mr. Morgan:s injuries. Mr. Fcaron~s expert opinion similarly relied upon both

photographic evidence and Mr. Morgan's sworn statements, in addition to his stte

inspection, allowing him to concJude that the lm:ation \Vas properly maintained and that no

condition existed lhut represented a danger to Mr. Morgan or dJ ~ pro>..Jmat.e cause of Mr.

Morgan's injuries. According]y, as both parties ~ubmit competing expert evidence) the

trier of fact must make the determinations as to the expc:rts' credibilily and \Vhether a

dangerous condition existed causing Mr. Morgan:s injuries. Therefore, mot. seq. nos. 5

and 7 are denied.

To the extent not specifically addressed herein, the parties) remaining contentions

have been considered and found to be either meritlcss and/or moot.

Conclusion

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that mot. seq. no. 4 is denied W[th leave to renew upon the dose of

discovery; an

ORDERED that mot. seq. no. 5 is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that mot. seq. no. 7 is denied; and it is further

[* 25] 25 of 26 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/07/2022 INDEX NO. 515094/2018 NYSCEF. DOC. NO. 316 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/09/2022

ORDERED that mot seq. no. 8 is granted to the extent that Hallen's time to answer

Mr. Morgan's third amended complaint is extended to 21 days from service or this order

,vith notice of entry, the remainder of mot. seq. no. 8 is denied in all other respects; and it

is i'urther

ORDERED that mot. seq. no. 10 is gra_~~e~_ to the extent that Mr. Morgan~s

complaint is hereby amended and the Third Amended Verified Complaint in the proposed

form annexed to the moving papers shall be deemed served upon the parties Llpon service

of a copy of this order with a notice of entry thereof1 the rcmaindt:r of mot. seq. no. l Q is

denied in all other respects.

Th is constitutes the decision and order of the court.

ENTER,

----·------- ]. S. C.

i_.,

[* 26] 26 of 26