Solano v. Global 1845 Broadway LLC
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 30077(U) (Solano v. Global 1845 Broadway LLC) 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.
Opinion
Solano v Global 1845 Broadway LLC 2025 NY Slip Op 30077(U) January 10, 2025 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 154182/2022 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. 154182/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice - - - - - - - - - - - ·-----X INDEX NO. 154182/2022 YAJAIRA SOLANO, MOTION DATE 05/10/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 - V -
GLOBAL 1845 BROADWAY LLC,GLOBAL HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT GROUP (US) INC.,PAVARINI MCGOVERN, LLC/ STRUCTURE TONE, LLC,PAVARINI DECISION + ORDER ON MCGOVERN, LLC,STRUCTURE TONE, LLC,STRUCTURE MOTION TONE GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC
Defendant. -----------------------------·----X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43,44, 45,46,47, 48,49, 50, 51, 52 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY
Upon the foregoing documents, and after a final submission date of September 5, 2024,
where David H. Larkin, Esq. appeared for Plaintiff Yajaira Solano ("Plaintiff'), and defendants
failed to appear, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on her Labor Law§ 241(6) claims and
seeking dismissal of Defendants Global 1845 Broadway LLC, Global Holdings Management
Group (US), Inc., and Pavarini McGovern, LLC's 1 (collectively "Defendants") affirmative
defenses is granted in part and denied in part.
I. Background
This is an action for personal injuries arising from a construction accident. Plaintiff alleges that
on March 4, 2022, at 3:00 p.m., she fell on scattered debris in a dark passageway while working
on construction site at 1841 Broadway, New York, New York (the "Premises"). Plaintiff was
1 Plaintiff voluntarily discontinued her claims against Pavarini McGovern/Structure Tone, LLC, Structure Tone Global Services, LLC, and Structure Tone, LLC. 154182/2022 SOLANO, YAJAIRA vs. GLOBAL 1845 BROADWAY LLC ET AL Page 1 of4 Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 4 INDEX NO. 154182/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2025
working for non-party Verna Group on the date of her accident (NYSCEF Doc. 44 at 16). Her
duties included carrying materials to workers (id. at 24). Plaintiff had to walk through a hallway
that was filled with debris, including rebar, blocks, and a slab of dry cement (id. at 45-46). While
walking through the hallway, she slipped on rebar and fell (id. at 46, 50).
Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on her Labor Law § 241 ( 6) claims predicated on Industrial
Code 23-1.7(e)(l), 23-1.7(e)(2), 23-1.7(d), and 23-1.30. Plaintiff argues Defendants' sole
proximate cause defense must be dismissed because a plaintiff cannot be the sole proximate cause
if a Labor Law violation exists. Plaintiff also seeks dismissal of Defendants' comparative
negligence defense.
II. Discussion
"Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has
tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact." (Vega v
Restani Const. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). The moving party's "burden is a heavy one and
on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party." (Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hasps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]).
Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce
evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact
which require a trial (See e.g., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557,562 [1980]).
Here, Plaintiff demonstrated her entitlement to summary judgment on her Labor Law § 241 ( 6)
claims. It is undisputed that Plaintiff was walking through a passageway within the meaning of
154182/2022 SOLANO, YAJAIRA vs. GLOBAL 1845 BROADWAY LLC ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 002
2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 154182/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2025
Industrial Code 23-1.7(e)(1) 2 and work area within the meaning of23-1.7(e)(2) 3 when she tripped
over an accumulation of construction related debris (see e.g. Rossi v 140 West JV Manager LLC,
171 AD3d 668 [l st Dept 2019]). Likewise, the pencil rod rebar was a foreign substance that caused
Plaintiff to lose her footing pursuant to 23-l.7(d)4 (Lopez v city of New York Transit Auth., 21
AD3d 259 [l st Dept 2005]). Finally, Plaintiff testified there was no lighting and no windows,
which made the conditions very dark, making her unable to see the debris. She also was not
provided a flashlight or light on her hardhat. This is sufficient evidence to show a violation of
Industrial Code 23-1.30, which imposes liability for improper lighting in workareas (Favaloro v
Port Auth. ofN.Y & NJ, 191 AD3d 524 [1st Dept 2021]).
In opposition, Defendants argue they should be entitled to cross-examine Plaintiff and let the
jury decide her credibility. However, Defendants had an opportunity to examine Plaintiff at her
deposition, and they cannot now oppose summary judgment with the speculative hope they can
raise credibility issues at trial. As routinely held by the First Department, the mere fact that a
plaintiffs fall was unwitnessed is insufficient to defeat summary judgment motion on a violation
of the Labor Law (Dyszkiewicz v City of New York, 194 AD3d 444 [1st Dept 2021]; Erkan v
McDonald's Corp., 146 AD3d 466 [1st Dept 2017]). Nothing in the record calls Plaintiffs
credibility in question, and the documentation of the incident by Defendants holster's Plaintiffs
credibility (Milligan v Tutor Perini Corp., 191 AD3d 437 [1st Dept 2021]; Ortiz v Burke Ave.
2 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(l) provides that "[a]ll passageways shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from any other obstructions or conditions which could cause tripping." 3 12 NYCRR 23-l .7(e)(2) provides that "the parts of floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials ... as may be consistent with the work being performed." 4 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) provides that "[e]mployers shall not ... permit any employee to use a floor, passageway [or] walkway ... which is in a slippery condition .... [a]ny foreign substance which may cause slippery footing shall be removed, sanded or covered to provide safe footing" 154182/2022 SOLANO, YAJAIRA vs. GLOBAL 1845 BROADWAY LLC ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 002
[* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 154182/2022 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 55 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/10/2025
Realty, Inc., 126 AD3d 577 [1st Dept 2015]). Therefore, summary judgment on Plaintiffs Labor
Law§ 241(6) claim is granted.
Because a plaintiff cannot be the sole proximate cause of her own accident where a violation
of the Labor Law exists, Defendant's sole proximate cause affirmative defense is dismissed
(Quiroz v Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases, 202 AD3d 601 [1st Dept 2022]).
However, Plaintiff is not entitled to dismissal of any of Defendants ' affirrnati ve defenses alleging
comparative negligence. A plaintiffs comparative negligence is a valid defense to an action under
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 30077(U), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/solano-v-global-1845-broadway-llc-nysupctnewyork-2025.