| Ortega v Everest Realty LLC |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03977 [84 AD3d 542] |
| May 12, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Rudy Ortega, Appellant, v Everest Realty LLC et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Nicoletti Gonson Spinner & Owen LLP, New York (Pauline E. Glaser of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered December 23, 2009,which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion by defendantsEverest Realty LLC and Sindrome Construction Inc. for summary judgment dismissing thecommon-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action asagainst them, modified, on the law, to deny the motion as to the Labor Law § 241 (6) causeof action and to grant plaintiff leave to amend his bill of particulars to assert violations of 12NYCRR 23-3.3 (b) (3) and (c), and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff seeks damages for injuries he suffered while demolishing a shed on property ownedby Everest in the course of a project on which Sindrome was the general contractor. Plaintifftestified that the unshored aluminum 12-foot wall of the shed fell onto him and caused him to cuthis leg with the gas powered demolition saw he was using to cut through the aluminum. Plaintifftestified that before the accident occurred, he had told his supervisor he was afraid of cutting anyfurther because "when I was cutting, the wall was like shaking and going to the side." Hissupervisor told him that he must continue the work. As the injury was brought about by themanner in which plaintiff performed his work and neither Everest nor Sindrome supervised orcontrolled plaintiff's work, plaintiff cannot recover from either of these defendants on hiscommon-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims (see Lombardi v Stout, 80NY2d 290, 295 [1992]; Vaneer v 993Intervale Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 5 AD3d 161, 162-163 [2004]). Plaintiff contendsthat the cause of his accident was a workplace condition, to wit, an unshored or unbraced shedwall, rather than the method he used to demolish the wall. However, based on his testimony that,while he was cutting, the wall was shaking and moving sideways, it can be inferred that theexisting condition necessitated a different method of demolishing the wall. Hence, the failure toalter plaintiff's method of performing his work was his employer's (see Brown v VJB Constr. Corp., 50AD3d 373, 377 [2008]).
The court erred, however, by dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.Labor [*2]Law § 241 (6) requires that contractors andowners "provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed" inconstruction, excavation and demolition work. In order to prevail on a cause of action underLabor Law § 241 (6), a plaintiff must establish a violation of an implementing regulationwhich sets forth a specific standard of conduct (see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec.Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501-504 [1993]). There is no dispute that the Industrial Code sectionsupon which plaintiff relies here are sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241 (6)claim. Further, there is an issue of fact as to whether defendants violated Industrial Code (12NYCRR) § 23-1.12 (c) (1), cited by plaintiff in his bill of particulars, so as to render themliable under Labor Law § 241 (6). Section 23-1.12 (c) (1) requires that a power saw beequipped "with a movable self-adjusting guard below the base plate which will completely coverthe saw blade to the depth of the teeth when such saw blade is removed from the cut."Notwithstanding defendants' argument, plaintiff's deposition testimony that the saw had verylittle cover on the bottom does not address the question of whether the saw was equipped incompliance with the Industrial Code.
Summary judgment was also improperly granted insofar as plaintiff sought to base his LaborLaw § 241 (6) cause of action on alleged violations of two Industrial Code provisions notcited in his bill of particulars. Those sections are Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-3.3 (b)(3), which provides that "[w]alls, chimneys and other parts of any . . . structure shallnot be left unguarded in such condition that such parts may fall, collapse or be weakened by windpressure or vibration," and Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-3.3 (c), which provides:"Inspection. During hand demolition operations, continuing inspections shall be made bydesignated persons as the work progresses to detect any hazards to any person resulting fromweakened or deteriorated floors or walls or from loosened material. Persons shall not be sufferedor permitted to work where such hazards exist until protection has been provided by shoring,bracing or other effective means."
Preliminarily, while plaintiff identified these Code provisions only after filing the note ofissue and in response to defendants' motion, defendants were not prejudiced by the delay. This isbecause the theory that the accident would not have occurred had the shed been properlyinspected and shored was consistent with plaintiff's testimony and the allegations in the bill ofparticulars (see Walker v Metro-NorthCommuter R.R., 11 AD3d 339, 340-341 [2004]; Noetzell v Park Ave. Hall Hous.Dev. Fund Corp., 271 AD2d 231 [2000]). Accordingly, we grant leave to plaintiff to amendhis bill of particulars to allege the provisions.
Contrary to the dissent's view, an issue of fact exists as to whether these sections apply to thefacts of this case. Plaintiff clearly testified that the aluminum wall was "shaking" before it fell.While the dissent apparently infers that this vibration was a direct effect of the saw cuttingthrough the metal, the record also permits the alternative inference that the cutting had weakenedthe structure, causing it to vibrate and then fall. On a motion for summary judgment, we arerequired to draw all favorable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party (see Liberty Ins. Underwriters Inc. v CorpinaPiergrossi Overzat & Klar LLP, 78 AD3d 602, 605 [2010]). If the latter scenariooccurred, defendants violated the cited sections because there is no dispute that the wall was left"unguarded" during the demolition process (12 NYCRR 23-3.3 [b] [3]) and that defendants failedto make any inspections of the demolition work for the purpose of "detect[ing] any hazards toany person resulting from weakened or deteriorated floors or walls or from [*3]loosened material" (12 NYCRR 23-3.3 [c]). Defendants' reliance onSmith v New York City Hous.Auth. (71 AD3d 985 [2010]) is misplaced because in that case the record was clear thatthe hazard rose from the plaintiff's demolition work itself, not the structural instability caused bythe progress of the demolition.
Finally, we note that reinstatement of the section 241 (6) claim, to the extent it relies onIndustrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-3.3 (b) (3) and (c), would not be inconsistent withdismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 claim. For the latter section to apply in a case,such as this, arising out of the means and methods of the work, the defendants must haveexercised their authority to control the work in which the plaintiff was engaged (see Mitchell v New York Univ., 12AD3d 200 [2004]). There is no evidence that defendants directed plaintiff's work in such away that it met that standard. However, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241 (6) canattach regardless of such control (see Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 NY2d 290, 300[1978]). Concur—Mazzarelli, Friedman and Renwick, JJ.
Tom, J.P., and DeGrasse, J., dissent in part in a memorandum by DeGrasse, J., as follows: Irespectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority's conclusion that plaintiff's Labor Law§ 241 (6) cause of action can be premised on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR)§ 23-3.3 (b) (3) and (c). Plaintiff was injured while using a power saw to cut down the 12foot aluminum wall of a shed. The wall collapsed while plaintiff was cutting it, causing him tocut his leg with the saw. As found by the majority, plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 andcommon-law claims were properly dismissed because the accident was brought about by themanner in which plaintiff performed his work, a matter beyond the control of the movingdefendants, which are the owner and general contractor of the project (see Lombardi vStout, 80 NY2d 290, 295 [1992]).
There is however an issue of fact as to whether the moving defendants violated IndustrialCode (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12 (c) (1) so as to render them liable under Labor Law §241 (6). Section 23-1.12 (c) (1) requires that a power saw be equipped "with a movableself-adjusting guard below the base plate which will completely cover the saw blade to the depthof the teeth when such saw blade is removed from the cut." Notwithstanding defendants'argument, plaintiff's deposition testimony that the saw had very little cover on the bottom doesnot address the question of whether the saw was compliant with the Industrial Code.
Summary judgment was properly granted insofar as plaintiff sought to base his Labor Law§ 241 (6) cause of action on alleged violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §23-3.3 (b) (3) and (c), which apply to hand demolition operations. Section 23-3.3 (b) (3) providesthat "[w]alls, chimneys and other parts of any building or other structure shall not be leftunguarded in such condition that such parts may fall, collapse or be weakened by wind pressureor vibration" (id.). Section 23-3.3 (b) (3) is not implicated because the rule does not [*4]require the guarding of a wall while a worker is in the very act ofcutting it down.
Moreover, section 23-3.3 (c) requires " 'continuing inspections against hazards which arecreated by the progress of the demolition work itself' rather than inspections of how demolitionwould be performed" (Campoverde vBruckner Plaza Assoc., L.P., 50 AD3d 836, 837 [2008] [citation omitted]). Plaintifftestified that "when [he] was cutting, the wall was like shaking and going to the side"(emphasis added). This testimony makes it clear that, as in Campoverde, the "hazardwhich injured the plaintiff was the actual performance of the demolition work, not structuralinstability caused by the progress of the demolition" (id. at 837). Accordingly, I disagreewith the majority insofar as it posits that the record permits an alternative inference. Accordingly,I would modify the court's order to the extent of denying defendants' motion for summaryjudgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action except insofar as it is premised uponIndustrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12 (c) (1).