Henry v. Split Rock Rehab. & Health Care Ctr., LLC

• Decision Date: 19 May 2022
• Docket Number: 15970,Index. No. 25661/14E,Case No. 2021–02700
• Citation: 205 A.D.3d 540,166 N.Y.S.3d 538 (Mem)
• Parties: Ian HENRY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. SPLIT ROCK REHABILITATION AND HEALTH CARE CENTER, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants, Magar Maintenance Corporation, Defendant. Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, Plaintiff, v. HI Cool, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

205 A.D.3d 540

166 N.Y.S.3d 538 (Mem)

Ian HENRY, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.SPLIT ROCK REHABILITATION AND HEALTH CARE CENTER, LLC, et al., Defendants–Appellants,Magar Maintenance Corporation, Defendant.

Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.HI Cool, Inc., Defendant.

15970

Index. No. 25661/14E

Case No. 2021–02700

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED May 19, 2022

Caitlin Robin & Associates, PLLC, New York (Logan Youngworth–Wright of counsel), for appellants.

Rosenbaum & Rosenbaum, P.C., New York (Mark W. Walsh of counsel), for respondent.

Kapnick, J.P., Webber, Mendez, Pitt, Higgitt, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lline´t M. Rosado, J.), entered on or about April 19, 2021, which granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's motion was properly granted, as defendants failed to establish that they have "been hindered in the preparation of [their] case or [have] been prevented from taking some measure in support of [their] position" ( Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23, 444 N.Y.S.2d 571, 429 N.E.2d 90 [1981] ). Simply because defendants may be exposed to greater liability or may be required to spend more time in the preparation of their case does not constitute prejudice to defendants (see Jacobson v. McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharms., 68 A.D.3d 652, 654, 891 N.Y.S.2d 387 [1st Dept. 2009] ).

As for the potential viability of plaintiff's new Labor Law § 200 claim, although there is no evidence that defendants supervised plaintiff, plaintiff is not proceeding on a "means and methods" theory, but on a claim that there was a defect in the premises (see Haynes v. Boricua Vil. Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 170 A.D.3d 509, 511, 96 N.Y.S.3d 178 [1st Dept. 2019] ). As for the proposed Labor Law § 241(6) claim, plaintiff identified a sufficiently specific Industrial Code provision which applies to owners, even though it imposes obligations on the employer ( Rubino v. 330 Madison Co., LLC, 150 A.D.3d 603, 604, 56 N.Y.S.3d 55 [1st Dept. 2017] ; see Industrial Code 23–1.13[b][4]). While defendants argue that plaintiff was not involved in construction within the meaning of the statute, in the context of a motion for leave to amend, we do not decide the merits of the proposed pleading (see Pier 59 Studios, L.P. v. Chelsea Piers, L.P., 40 A.D.3d 363, 366, 836 N.Y.S.2d 68 [1st Dept. 2007] ) and defendants have not cited any authority...