From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Espinoza v. Fowler-Daley Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Apr 4, 2019
171 A.D.3d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

8911 Index 305358/14

04-04-2019

Edgard ESPINOZA, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. FOWLER–DALEY OWNERS, INC., Defendant–Appellant, Kenilworth Equities Ltd., et al., Defendants.

Brody, O'Connor & O'Connor, New York (Scott A. Brody of counsel), for appellant. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.


Brody, O'Connor & O'Connor, New York (Scott A. Brody of counsel), for appellant.

Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, LLP, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer, JJ.

Plaintiff's post-note of issue summary judgment motion was not premature. If Fowler needed to conduct additional nonparty depositions in order to successfully oppose the motion, then it should have either deposed those witnesses during the nearly two years that discovery was open in this case or moved to vacate the note of issue on that basis. Fowler "cannot cite [its] own inaction as justification to deny" plaintiff's summary judgment motion ( Judd v. Vilardo, 57 A.D.3d 1127, 1131, 870 N.Y.S.2d 485 [3d Dept. 2008] ; see also Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619, 636, 419 N.Y.S.2d 920, 393 N.E.2d 994 [1979] ).

Plaintiff's motion was properly granted, as he established prima facie that Fowler failed to provide equipment such as harnesses and tie-off points for safety lines, which plaintiff had specifically requested on and prior to the day of his accident, in order to give proper protection to individuals involved in pointing its building (see Ramos v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 306 A.D.2d 147, 761 N.Y.S.2d 57 [1st Dept. 2003] ). In opposition, Fowler failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Its argument that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident fails because "if a statutory violation is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it" ( Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280, 290, 771 N.Y.S.2d 484, 803 N.E.2d 757 [2003] ).

We have considered Fowler's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Espinoza v. Fowler-Daley Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Apr 4, 2019
171 A.D.3d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

Espinoza v. Fowler-Daley Owners, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Edgard Espinoza, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Fowler-Daley Owners, Inc.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date published: Apr 4, 2019

Citations

171 A.D.3d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
95 N.Y.S.3d 793
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 2635

Citing Cases

Parker v. City of New York

In addition, the instant motion for summary judgment is premature (see CPLR § 3212[f]; see also Espinoza v…

Mogrovejo v. HG Hous. Dev. Fund Co.

Further, the plaintiff's coworker, who also was a Nivelo employee and who witnessed the accident, averred…