Vita v. N.Y. Law Sch.

• Decision Date: 05 July 2018
• Docket Number: 2015–07603,771/11
• Citation: 163 A.D.3d 605,80 N.Y.S.3d 387
• Parties: Michael VITA, appellant, v. NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL, et al., respondents (and third-Party actions).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

163 A.D.3d 605
80 N.Y.S.3d 387

Michael VITA, appellant,
v.
NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL, et al., respondents (and third-Party actions).

2015–07603
771/11

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

Argued—November 27, 2017
July 5, 2018

80 N.Y.S.3d 388

Robert A. Cardali & Associates, LLP (Arnold E. DiJoseph, P.C., New York, N.Y. [Arnold E. DiJoseph III ], of counsel), for appellant.

Barry, McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York, N.Y. (Laurel A. Wedinger of counsel), for respondent New York Law School.

Cartafalsa, Slattery, Turpin & Lenoff, New York, N.Y. (Michael Lenoff of counsel), for respondent Henick–Lane, Inc.

CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P. SHERI S. ROMAN ROBERT J. MILLER COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Larry D. Martin, J.), dated May 13, 2015, which granted those branches of the defendants' separate motions which were for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion of the defendant New York Law School which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it, and substituting therefore a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendant Henick–Lane, Inc., payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, a shop steward, was working for Pavarini McGovern (hereinafter Pavarini) on a project to construct a new building for the defendant New York Law School (hereinafter the law school). Pavarini was the general contractor on the project. In a subcontract, Pavarini hired the defendant Henick–Lane, Inc. (hereinafter Henick), to do the piping for the air conditioning on the project, and Henick subcontracted that work out to Bradshaw Mechanical Co., Inc. The plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he tripped over a condensate pipe that was attached to an HVAC unit in a mechanical room, which

80 N.Y.S.3d 389

was also used as a storage space. The pipe was attached to the HVAC unit on one side of the room and extended across the floor. The plaintiff alleged that he had been moving items in the room and walked over the pipe several times before he tripped over it. The plaintiff alleged that, at the time of the incident, he was carrying a 60–pound pallet in one hand and a box of filters in the other, and as he was walking across the room, his left foot went underneath the pipe, causing him to trip and sustain injuries.

Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action against the law school, asserting causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6), and alleging, inter alia, that the law school "failed and neglected to provide the plaintiff with an adequately safe work area." The law school commenced a third-party action against Henick, alleging common-law negligence and failure to procure insurance, and seeking contribution, contractual...