Bateman v. Permanent Mission of Chad
| Decision Date | 15 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 18-CV-00416 (PMH) |
| Parties | CHARLES G. BATEMAN, III, Plaintiff, v. THE PERMANENT MISSION OF CHAD TO THE UNITED NATIONS IN NEW YORK, Defendant. THE PERMANENT MISSION OF CHAD TO THE UNITED NATIONS IN NEW YORK, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. HILT CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT CORP., Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Charles G. Bateman, III ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against Defendant The Permanent Mission of Chad to the United Nations in New York ("Chad") alleging claims for relief sounding in negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, and Section 23 of the Industrial Code of the State of New York in connection with an accident that occurred at the construction site during the renovation of a residence for the Ambassador for the Republic of Chad to the United Nations (the "Complaint"). (Doc. 2, "Compl."). On June 7, 2018, Chad filed its Amended Answer to the Complaint ("Chad's Answer") (Doc. 17), and on August 10, 2018, Chad commenced a third-party action (the "Third-Party Complaint") against Hilt Construction and Management Corp. ("Hilt"). (Doc. 23). Hilt filed its Answer to the Third-Party Complaint and Counterclaim against Chad on December 6, 2018. (Doc. 39). Chad served (but apparently did not file) an answer to Hilt's counterclaim. (Doc. 64-6).
This action had been referred1 to Magistrate Judge Smith on July 18, 2018 for general pre-trial administration, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pre-trial motions, and settlement. (Doc. 19). The parties appeared for approximately eight conferences with Magistrate Judge Smith, and following the close of discovery, the parties sought and were granted permission to make various motions. On March 13, 2020, Chad filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 65; Doc. 66, "Chad SJ Br."), and Hilt filed its motion for summary judgment (Doc. 59; Doc. 61). On June 26, 2020, Hilt and Chad opposed each other's motions for summary judgment (Docs. 77-81), and Plaintiff filed both a cross-motion to strike Chad's Answer and its opposition to Hilt's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 82; Doc. 84, "Pl. Br."). On July 24, 2020, Chad and Hilt filed replies in further support of their motions for summary judgment (Docs. 86-89), and Chad filed its opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion (Docs. 90, 91). On August 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed his reply with respect to his cross-motion to strike. (Doc. 92).2
For the reasons set forth below, Chad's motion for summary judgment is DENIED; Hilt's motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is GRANTED in part.
Chad and Hilt each moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Chad seeks an order dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint and granting summaryjudgment to it on the Third-Party Complaint for common law and contractual indemnification against Hilt; Hilt seeks summary judgment dismissing both Plaintiff's Complaint and the Third-Party Complaint.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "A fact is 'material' if it 'might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law,' and is genuinely in dispute 'if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'" Liverpool v. Davis, 442 F. Supp. 3d 714, 722 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). "'Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary' are not material and thus cannot preclude summary judgment." Sood v. Rampersaud, No. 12-CV-5486, 2013 WL 1681261, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2013) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The Court's duty, when determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, is "not to resolve disputed issues of fact but to assess whether there are any factual issues to be tried." Id. (quoting Wilson v. Nw. Mut. Ins. Co., 625 F.3d 54, 60 (2d Cir. 2010)). Indeed, the Court's function is not to determine the truth or weigh the evidence; the task is material issue spotting, not material issue determining. Therefore, "where there is an absence of sufficient proof as to one essential element of a claim, any factual disputes with respect to other elements of the claim are immaterial . . . ." Bellotto v. Cty. of Orange, 248 F. App'x 232, 234 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Salahuddin v. Goord, 467 F.3d 263, 281 (2d Cir. 2006)). Claims simply cannot proceed in the absence of sufficient proof as to an essential element.
"It is the movant's burden to show that no genuine factual dispute exists," Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970)), and a court must "resolve all ambiguities and draw allreasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor." Id. (citing Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 140 (2d Cir. 2003)). Once the movant has met its burden, the non-movant "must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Liverpool, 442 F. Supp. 3d at 722 (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986)). The non-movant cannot defeat a summary judgment motion by relying on "mere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts. . . ." Id. (quoting Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir. 1986)). However, "[i]f there is any evidence from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the opposing party on the issue on which summary judgment is sought, summary judgment is improper." Sood, 2013 WL 1681261, at *2 (citing Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2004)).
Should there be no genuine issue of material fact, the movant must also establish its "entitlement to judgment as a matter of law." In re Davis New York Venture Fund Fee Litig., 805 F. App'x 79, 80 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting FIH, LLC v. Found. Capital Partners LLC, 920 F.3d 134, 140 (2d Cir. 2019)). Stated simply, the movant must establish that the law favors the judgment sought. Gonzalez v. Rutherford Corp., 881 F. Supp. 829, 834 (E.D.N.Y. 1995) (); Linares v. City of White Plains, 773 F. Supp. 559, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (). This standard applies equally to claims for relief and affirmative defenses. Giordano v. Market Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 2010) ().
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d) provides that the Court may, on motion, order sanctions if a party "fails, after being served with proper notice, to appear for that person's deposition[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(A)(i). Sanctions that may be imposed under Rule 37(d) include, among others, "prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence" and "striking pleadings in whole or in part." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A), (d)(3). "Instead of or in addition to these sanctions, the court must require the party failing to act, the attorney advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d)(3).
"Striking an answer, like dismissal or entry of default, is a drastic remedy generally to be used only when the district judge has considered lesser alternatives." Pelgrift v. 355 W. 51st Tavern Inc., No. 14-CV-8934, 2016 WL 817470, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2016). Further, "[b]efore the extreme sanction of preclusion may be used by the district court, a judge should inquire more fully into the actual difficulties which the violation causes, and must consider less drastic responses." Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587, 591 (2d Cir. 1988). In considering whether to impose sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(d), courts consider: "(1) the willfulness of the non-compliant party or the reason for noncompliance; (2) the efficacy of lesser sanctions; (3) the duration of the period of noncompliance; and (4) whether the non-compliant party had been warned of the consequences of . . . noncompliance." Agiwal v. Mid Island Mortg. Corp., 555 F.3d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).
Chad argues that Plaintiff's first claim for relief fails because Chad was not involved at the construction site and thus free of negligence as a matter of law; and that Plaintiff's second and third claims under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 should be dismissed under the exemptions set forth in those statutes. Chad further seeks summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnity against Hilt on the grounds that the language set forth in the contract between Chad and Hilt is clear, and on its claim for common law indemnity against Hilt on the grounds that Chad was not negligent and its liability, if any, will be strictly statutory.
With respect to Chad's argument concerning the first claim for relief, the Court disagrees that there is no triable issue of fact concerning Chad's involvement at the construction site. "To establish a prima facie case of negligence under New York law, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom." Clark v. Target Corp., No....
To continue reading
Request your trial