DeFalco v. Life Covenant Church, Inc.

Decision Date06 December 2021
Docket NumberIndex 2016-2070
PartiesChristopher A. DeFalco and LANA A. DeFALCO, Plaintiffs, v. Life Covenant Church, Inc., THE WHITING- TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, RIFENBURG CONTRACTING CORPORATION and FORT MILLER FAB3 CORP., Defendants. THE FORT MILLER CO., INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. PHOENIX TRUCK LINES, INC., Third-Party Defendant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court

2021 NY Slip Op 51293(U)

Christopher A. DeFalco and LANA A. DeFALCO, Plaintiffs,
v.
Life Covenant Church, Inc., THE WHITING- TURNER CONTRACTING COMPANY, RIFENBURG CONTRACTING CORPORATION and FORT MILLER FAB3 CORP., Defendants.

THE FORT MILLER CO., INC., Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
PHOENIX TRUCK LINES, INC., Third-Party Defendant.

Index No. 2016-2070

Supreme Court, Saratoga County

December 6, 2021


Unpublished Opinion

For Plaintiff: Peter J. Hickey, Esq. Martin, Harding & Mazzotti, LLP

For Defendants Life Covenant Church, Whiting-Turner Contracting, Rifenburg Contracting William Greagan, Esq. Goldberg Segalla, LLC

For Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Fort Miller Co. Christine Hanlon, Esq. Law Offices of Lori D. Fishman

For Third-Party Defendant Phoenix Truck Lines Brian D. Carr, Esq. Monaco, Cooper, Lamme and Carr, PLLC

Notice of Motion (Miller); Statement of Material Facts; Affirmation of Christine Hanlon, Esq., with annexed exhibits; Counterstatement of Material Facts; Affirmation of Caitlin A. Goetz, Esq.; Memorandum of Law; Affirmation of William J. Greagan, Esq., with annexed exhibits; Affidavit of John P. Coniglio; Memorandum of Law; Reply Affirmation of Christine Hanlon, Esq.

Notice of Motion (Plaintiffs); Statement of Material Facts; Affirmation of Peter B. Balouskas, Esq., with annexed exhibits; Memorandum of Law;

Notice of Motion (Life, Whiting, Rifenburg); Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts; Affirmation in Opposition of William J. Greagan, Esq., with annexed exhibit; Affidavit of John P. Coniglio, with annexed exhibit; Memorandum of Law; Affirmation in Opposition and Reply of Peter B. Balouskas, Esq.; Reply Memorandum of Law;

Notice of Motion (Phoenix); Statement of Material Facts; Affirmation of Brian D. Carr, Esq., with annexed exhibits; Affidavit of Gary Wilmoski; Memorandum of Law; Affirmation in Opposition of Christine Hanlon, Esq.; Reply Affirmation of Brian D. Carr, Esq.; Reply Memorandum of Law.

Thomas D. Buchanan, Supreme Court Justice

This matter comes before the court on four different summary judgment motions. Defendant and third-party plaintiff The Fort Miller Co., Inc. s/h/a Fort Miller Fab3 Corp. ("Miller") has moved for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint and all cross-claims against it, and for indemnification from defendants Rifenburg Contracting Corporation ("Rifenburg") and Phoenix Truck Lines, Inc. ("Phoenix"). Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against defendants Rifenburg, Life Covenant Church, Inc. ("Life") and The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company ("Whiting"). Phoenix has moved for summary judgment dismissing the Third-Party Complaint. Life, Whiting and Rifenburg have moved for summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' Labor Law claims.

This case arises from an accident at a construction site owned by Life. Plaintiff Christopher DeFalco was delivering precast concrete and cast-iron components for a storm water drainage system that were supplied by Miller. He was injured when he was struck by storm sewer covers and frames that fell from the flat bed trailer while it was being unloaded by an employee of Rifenburg. The Complaint contains claims under Labor Law §§200, 240 and 241, as well as a claim sounding in negligence and a derivative claim by Mrs. DeFalco.

The basic standard to be applied by a court addressing a summary judgment motion is well established. The proponent of a summary judgment motion carries the initial burden to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851 [1985]). If the requisite showing is made, the burden of proof then shifts to the responding party or parties to show the presence of questions of fact requiring trial (Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320 [1986]). The facts must be construed in a light most favorable to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT