Vasquez v 1719 27 ST, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
This construction-site personal injury case concerns whether an owner, contractor, or construction manager may be liable for a worker's injuries under Labor Law § 200 [codifies the duty to provide workers a safe place to work, and in dangerous premises condition cases requires control over the work site plus creation of the condition or actual or constructive notice] and common-law negligence after the worker was struck by a delivery gate.
The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to both the 27 ST defendants and the Petrocelli defendants dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against them, granted the Petrocelli defendants leave to make a late summary judgment motion, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motions for summary judgment on liability.
The Appellate Division reversed only the portion of the order that granted summary judgment to the Petrocelli defendants on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. It otherwise affirmed, including the dismissal in favor of the 27 ST defendants and the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motions.
The 27 ST defendants made a prima facie showing that they lacked the necessary control over the site and neither created nor had notice of the gate condition, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue. By contrast, the Petrocelli defendants failed to show, as a matter of law, that they lacked sufficient supervisory control to be treated like a general contractor or agent, and they also failed to show lack of constructive notice because they offered no proof that the dangerous condition had not existed long enough to be discovered and corrected.
Background
The plaintiff, a construction worker, alleged that he was injured at a construction site when he was struck by a delivery gate. He sued, among others, the property-related defendants 1719 27 ST, LLC and 27 ST CON, LLC, and the Petrocelli defendants, asserting common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The 27 ST defendants moved for summary judgment in February 2020. The plaintiff cross-moved against them in January 2021. The Petrocelli defendants later sought leave to file a late summary judgment motion because significant discovery remained outstanding when the note of issue had been filed, including four party depositions, and then sought dismissal of the same claims. The plaintiff separately cross-moved for summary judgment against the Petrocelli defendants.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the 27 ST defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against them. It also granted the Petrocelli defendants leave to extend the time to move for summary judgment and then granted their motion dismissing those same claims. The court denied both of the plaintiff's cross-motions for summary judgment on liability, including as untimely where they were made more than one year after the note of issue and, in part, relied on different grounds such as Administrative Code of the City of New York § 7-210 [New York City provision allocating liability for failure to maintain sidewalks].
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by denying the Petrocelli defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. It held that the Petrocelli defendants did not establish prima facie that they lacked sufficient site control or supervisory authority, and they also failed to negate constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous delivery gate condition. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the 27 ST defendants because they established lack of control, creation, and notice. It also affirmed the grant of leave to the Petrocelli defendants to make a late summary judgment motion because essential discovery remained outstanding when the note of issue was filed. Finally, it affirmed denial of the plaintiff's cross-motions because they were untimely in part and, in any event, the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie that the Petrocelli defendants had actual or constructive notice of the gate condition.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that in Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence cases based on a dangerous premises condition, a defendant seeking summary judgment must affirmatively negate control and notice. A construction manager may face liability if it was delegated the authority and duties of a general contractor or acted as the owner's agent through supervisory control over the injury-producing work. The case also underscores that leave to make a late summary judgment motion may be granted where essential discovery remained incomplete despite the filing of a note of issue.
Owners with no meaningful site control and no proof of creation or notice can obtain dismissal, but construction managers or similar entities cannot win summary judgment without concrete proof that they lacked delegated supervisory authority and lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition.