Pecoraro v. City of New York

2025 NY Slip Op 31100(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 160517/2018
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Pecoraro v City of New York 2025 NY Slip Op 31100(U) April 2, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 160517/2018 Judge: Jeanine R. Johnson 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 04/04/2025 04:04 PM INDEX NO. 160517/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 157 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. JEANINE R. JOHNSON PART 15 Justice -------------------X INDEX NO. 160517/2018 FRANK MARIO PECORARO, MOTION DATE 11/08/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 - V-

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE CARNEGIE HALL CORPORATION, TRANSEL ELEVATOR & ELECTRIC, INC. DECISION + ORDER ON D/B/A TEI GROUP MOTION

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

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 145, 146, 147, 148, 149,150,152,153,154,155,156 were read on this motion to/for REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION

Upon the foregoing documents, Plaintiff-Frank Mario Pecoraro's motion to reargue the

Court's prior decision dated 10/11/2024 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 141) pursuant to CPLR § 222l(d) is

denied. This Court affirms its prior decision to deny Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on

the issue of liability against Defendants -The City of New York and The Carnegie Hall

Corporation (hereinafter, collectively "Defendants") pursuant to Labor Law§ 240(1), 241(6);

and Labor Law §200 and common law negligence.

Plaintiff, in his affirmation (NYSCEF Doc. No. 146 i!4), contends his motion should be

granted because the Court:

a. misapprehended the relevant facts and/or misapplied the relevant law in denying Plaintiffs motion in its entirety pursuant to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), where the evidence indisputably established that Plaintiff fell from a "platform" (a wet and slippery elevated gondola I-beam functioning as a scaffold) which Defendants expressly directed him to use to access the elevator machine room; b. misapprehended the relevant fact that, notwithstanding the presence of warning signs directing individuals to not walk on top of the gondola rail, there was no other way to proceed to the elevator

160517/2018 PECORARO, FRANK MARIO vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 1 of& Motion No. 005

[* 1] 1 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2025 04:04 PM INDEX NO. 160517/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 157 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025

machine room at the time of the incident because the building's broken window washing machine blocked any alternative access to the machine room; c. misapprehended the relevant facts in finding disputes of material fact as to whether "Defendants caused or created the hazardous condition and whether they exercised discretion and control over Plaintiffs activities" (Exhibit "D" at p. 3) where the evidence established that Defendant Carnegie Hall (1) explicitly directed Plaintiff to climb onto the I-beam in order to proceed to the machine room, (2) failed to correct a hazardous condition of which it had actual and constructive notice pursuant to a 2016 Memorandum expressly warning Carnegie Hall that workers were constrained to step on the I-beam to access the machine room, which was a dangerous practice that should be remedied by the installation of a staircase, and (3) created the injury-producing condition by instructing Plaintiff to walk on top of the I-beam to access the elevator motor room, thereby entitling Plaintiff to summary judgment with respect to liability on his Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims against Defendant Carnegie Hall.

"A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the court, is designed to afford a

party an opportunity to establish that the court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts

or misapplied any controlling principle oflaw." Mangine v Keller, 182 A.D.2d 476,477 (1st

Dept 1992); Foley v Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558,567 (1st Dept 1979). "Reargument is not designed to

afford the unsuccessful party successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided or to

present arguments different from those originally asserted." William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v

Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, 27 (1st Dept 1992). Plaintiff presents

Labor Law § 240(1)

Labor Law § 240( 1) provides that all contractors and owners shall furnish or erect, or

cause to be furnished or erected scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks,

pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so construed, placed and operated

as to give proper protection to [construction workers employed on the premises]." Ross v. Curtis-

160517/2018 PECORARO, FRANK MARIO vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 2 of& Motion No. 005

[* 2] 2 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2025 04:04 PM INDEX NO. 160517/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 157 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025

Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494,500 (1993). "To prevail on a section 240(1) claim,

the plaintiff must show that the statute was violated, and the violation was a proximate cause of

his injuries." Anderson v. MSG Holdings, L.P., 146 A.D.3d 401,402 (1st Dept 2017).

Plaintiff reiterates his previous argument that Defendants violated Labor Law§ 240(1) as

a matter of law because they "failed to provide Plaintiff with proper and appropriate safety

devices to protect him against elevation-related hazards, specifically a three-to-four-foot fall

from a wet and slippery gondola I-beam that he was directed to utilize as the functional

equivalent of a scaffold to perform his construction work." Pl. Aff. ,r 15. Plaintiff reasserts that

he was instructed by a Carnegie Hall building engineer to access the elevator repair room

(hereinafter, "worksite") by walking across a gondola rail because the usual pathway to the

worksite was blocked by a window washing unit. Plaintiff reargues that walking across the

gondola rail was the only way to access the worksite.

In its opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and in its opposition to the

instant motion, Defendants rely on the testimony of Carnegie Hall Building Engineer - Joseph

Fabricante, which states that it is unlikely an employee would direct Plaintiff to do so because of

the clear warning sign to not walk across the gondola rail. Fabricante Dep. p. 98: 11-21. When

discussing whether an alternate route was available, Mr. Fabbricante stated: "there is no walking

along the rails, okay. The only option is you can cross the rails and step down to the green roof,

cross the rail where there is dunnage. That's it." Fabricante Dep. p. 97:10-14.

This Court affirms its finding that the conflicting testimony clearly presents a triable

issue of fact as to whether Labor Law § 240( 1) was violated. In Gomez, the court held that Labor

Law § 240( 1) had been violated when the fire escape the plaintiff was working on detached from

the building and the plaintiff fell two stories. The First Department concluded that the fire

160517/2018 PECORARO, FRANK MARIO vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 005

[* 3] 3 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2025 04:04 PM INDEX NO. 160517/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 157 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025

escape was the functional equivalent of a scaffold, and the evidence showed that it was necessary

for plaintiff to stand on the exterior fire escape to remove a window on the third floor of the

building. Gomez v. City of New York, 63 A.D.3d 511 (1st Dept 2009). Here, unlike in Gomez,

there is a material dispute as to whether "it was necessary" for Plaintiff to use the gondola rail to

access the worksite thus converting it to a platform or scaffold..

Labor Law § 241 (6)

Labor Law§ 241(6) mandates that all areas in which construction, excavation or

demolition work is being performed are to be kept in a state that provides reasonable and

adequate protection and safety to those employed therein or lawfully there. NY Labor§ 241(6);

see generally Pereira v. New School, 148 A.D.3d 410 (1st Dep't 2017). Plaintiff's§ 241(6) claim

is predicated on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1. 7(d) and Industrial Code § 23-5 .3(e).

Industrial Code§ 23-1.7(d) is violated when an employer permits a passageway, walkway,

scaffold, platform, or other elevated working surface to be in a slippery condition. Pereira v.

New School, 148 A.D.3d 410 (1st Dep't 2017). Industrial Code § 23-5.3(e) states: "safety railing

constructed and installed in compliance with this Part (rule) shall be provided for every metal

scaffold."

This Court affirms its decision that a material fact in dispute exists concerning a violation

of Labor Law§ 241(6). Industrial Code§ 23-l.7(d) and Industrial Code§ 23-5.3(e) could only

apply once a trier of fact has determined that the gondola rail was used (a) as the functional

equivalent of a scaffold, and (b) for the purpose of persons walking across it which would then

trigger an obligation to install safety railing. Defendants provided a clear warning sign directing

persons to not walk on the gondola rail. (NYSCEF Doc. No. 108). Additionally, Defendants

160517/2018 PECORARO, FRANK MARIO vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page4of6 Motion No. 005

[* 4] 4 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2025 04:04 PM INDEX NO. 160517/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 157 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025

provided testimony from the building engineer affirming that it is not recommended for the

gondola rail to be used as a walkway. Plaintiffs restated arguments remain insufficient as a basis

for partial summary judgment. See generally Santos v. Condo 124 LLC, 161 A.D.3d 650 (1st

Dept 2018) (court held that§ 23-5.3(e) was inapplicable because plaintiff did not claim he was

caused to, fall due to i~adequate railings).

Labor Law § 200 or Common Law Negligence

Labor Law § 200 or common law negligence mandates that owners and contractors take.

reasonable steps to shield workers and give them safe workplaces. See generally Lourenco v.

City ofNew York, 288 A.D.3d. 577 (1st Dep't 2024). "An implicit precondition to this duty to

provide a safe workplace to work is that the party charged with that responsibility have the

authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an

unsafe condition." Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311 (1981).

This Court affirms its decision that a material fact in dispute exists concerning a violation

of Labor Law § 200 or common law negligence. Plaintiff testified that he showed his employer

that the typical pathway to the worksite location was blocked and· was told by his employer to

walk along the gondola rails. This alone raises a question of material fact as to whether

Defendants exercised authority over Plaintiffs actions that brought about his injuries. Plaintiff is

correct in his assertion that a determination of the proximate cause of his injuries would affect an

award of damages. However, the conflicting evidence surrounding who had authority and control

of Plaintiffs actions precludes the Court from granting summary judgment on liability.

Therefore, this Court affirms its decision denying Plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability.

160517/2018 PECORARO, FRANK MARIO vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page5of6 Motion No. 005

[* 5] 5 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 04/04/2025 04:04 PM INDEX NO. 160517/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 157 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2025

Accordingly it is hereby,

AFFIRMED that Plaintiffs motion to reargue is denied in its entirety; it is further

ORDERED that the matter is transferred to Part 52.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

HON. JEANINE R. JOHNSON J.I.C,

04/02/2025 DATE

~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER_ APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

160517/2018 PECORARO, FRANK MARIO vs. CITY OF NEW YORK Page 6 of6 Motion No. 005

[* 6] 6 of 6