Konkol v. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club

81 Misc.3d 1235 (A)

202 N.Y.S.3d 921 (Table)

Joshua KONKOL, Plaintiff,

v.SHINNECOCK HILLS GOLF CLUB and United States Golf Association, Defendants.

Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and United States Golf Association, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v.Arena Americas, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.

Index No. 606185/2020

Supreme Court, Suffolk County, New York.

Decided on January 25, 2024

Christopher Modelewski, J.

Upon the following papers read on this motion for partial summary judgment and cross motion for summary judgment : Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause and supporting papers by plaintiff, dated July 20, 2023 ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers by defendants/third-party plaintiffs, dated October 11, 2023 ; Notice of Cross-Motion and supporting papers by defendants/third-party plaintiffs, dated October 11, 2023 ; Answering Affidavits and supporting papers by plaintiff, dated October 24, 2023 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers by plaintiff, dated October 24, 2023 ; Replying Affidavits and supporting papers by defendants/third-party plaintiffs, dated October 27, 2023 ; it is

ORDERED that the motion by plaintiff Joshua Konkol for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law claims against defendants/third-party plaintiffs Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and United States Golf Association is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the cross-motion by defendants/third-party plaintiffs Shinnecock Hills Golf Club and United States Golf Association for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

Plaintiff Joshua Konkol commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained on March 26, 2018, at the premises known as Shinnecock Hills Golf Club ("the golf club"), during his employ for third-party defendant Arena Americas, Inc. ("third-party defendant"). The accident allegedly occurred when plaintiff fell from a ladder on which he was standing. Defendant/third-party plaintiff Shinnecock Hills Golf Club allegedly leased the golf club, located in Southampton, New York, to defendant/third-party plaintiff United States Golf Association. United States Golf Association allegedly hired third-party defendant to perform certain work in preparation for the 2018 U.S. Open Championship to be held at the golf club. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241, and 241-a. Third-party defendant has not answered the third-party complaint or appeared in this action.

Plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law claims against defendants/third-party plaintiffs. Plaintiff contends, among other things, that defendants/third-party plaintiffs are liable under Labor Law § 200, since a dangerous condition existed and they knew or should have known of its existence. With regard to his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, plaintiff argues, in part, that the subject ladder moved and was not secured. Plaintiff further contends that he is entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on defendants/third-party plaintiffs’ violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.21 (b) (9). In support of his motion, plaintiff submits, inter alia, his own deposition transcript.

Defendants/third-party plaintiffs oppose plaintiff's motion and cross-move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants/third-party plaintiffs argue, among other things, that plaintiff's claims for common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 must be dismissed, since the accident did not involve a defective or dangerous premises condition, and that neither of them controlled the means and methods of his work. Defendants/third-party plaintiffs also argue that they cannot be liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), as plaintiff was unable to identify the cause of his accident. With regard to plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, defendants/third-party plaintiffs contend, in part, that the Industrial Code provisions cited by plaintiff in the bill of particulars either lack the specificity required to qualify as a predicate for that claim or are inapplicable to this action. Defendants/third-party plaintiffs also contend that plaintiff improperly alleges a violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.21 (b) (9) for the first time in support of his motion, and that, in any event, such provision is inapplicable here. Defendants/third-party plaintiffs further argue that they are entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's remaining claims, because Labor Law §§ 240 (2) and (3) and 241-a are inapplicable to this matter. In support of their cross motion, defendants/third-party plaintiffs submit, inter alia, the deposition transcripts of plaintiff, Nicholas Conlin, who is Shinnecock Hills Golf Club's general manager, and Timothy Lloyd, who is United States Golf Association's director of operations.

Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty of property owners, contractors, and their agents to provide workers with a safe place to work (see Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co. , 91 NY2d 343, 670 NYS2d 816 [1998] ; Ricottone v PSEG Long Is., LLC , 221 AD3d 1032, 200 NYS3d 445 [2d Dept 2023] ). "Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed" ( Walsh v Kenny , 219 AD3d 1555, 1557, 198 NYS3d 90 [2d Dept 2023], quoting Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 61, 866 NYS2d 323 [2d Dept 2008] ; see Wilson v Bergon Constr. Corp. , 219 AD3d 1380, 195 NYS3d 800 [2d Dept 2023] ). Where the methods or materials of the work are at issue, the owner or general contractor must have exercised some supervisory control over the operation (see Mitchell v 148th St. Jamaica Condominium , 221 AD3d 596, 198 NYS3d 396 [2d Dept 2023] ; Wilson v Bergon Constr. Corp. , 219 AD3d 1380, 195 NYS3d 800 ). By contrast, where a premises condition is at issue, a defendant may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it either created the allegedly dangerous or defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of its existence without remedying it within a reasonable time (see Ricottone v PSEG Long Is., LLC , 221 AD3d 1032, 200 NYS3d 445 ; Walsh v Kenny , 219 AD3d 1555, 198 NYS3d 90 ). A defendant, however, is not obligated to blindly accept the plaintiff's categorization of an accident as either a method and manner case or a dangerous condition case, or both and may establish, as part of its prima facie showing, that the accident falls into one of the two broad categories of cases under the statute (see Rodriguez v HY 38 Owner, LLC , 192 AD3d 839, 143 NYS3d 411 [2d Dept 2021] ; Poulin v Ultimate Homes, Inc. , 166 AD3d 667, 87 NYS3d 189 [2d Dept 2018] ).

Defendants/third-party plaintiffs established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Here, defendants/third-party plaintiffs demonstrated, prima facie, that the accident did not arise from a dangerous or defective premises condition, but rather from the method and manner of the work (see Gomez v 670 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp. , 189 AD3d 1187, 138 NYS3d 111 [2d Dept 2020] ; Boody v El Sol Contr. & Constr. Corp. , 180 AD3d 863, 116 NYS3d 586 [2d Dept 2020] ; Pchelka v Southcroft, LLC , 178 AD3d 836, 115 NYS3d 382 [2d Dept 2019] ). The evidence adduced by defendants/third-party plaintiffs indicated, among other things, that plaintiff fell from a ladder on which he was standing while he was installing a tent, and that he did not receive any equipment, supplies, or instructions from either of them. Defendants/third-party plaintiffs further demonstrated, prima facie, that they did not exercise supervision or control over the performance of the work giving rise to the accident (see Gomez v 670 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp. , 189 AD3d 1187, 138 NYS3d 111 ; Boody v El Sol Contr. & Constr. Corp. , 180 AD3d 863, 116 NYS3d 586 ; Pchelka v Southcroft, LLC , 178 AD3d 836, 115 NYS3d 382 ). Evidence of mere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work, inspecting the work product, or making aesthetic decisions is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 (see Cruz v 451 Lexington Realty, LLC , 218 AD3d 733, 193 NYS3d 238 [2d Dept 2023] ; Jarnutowski v City of Long Beach , 210 AD3d 881, 179 NYS3d 105 [2d Dept 2022] ). In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Gomez v 670 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp. , 189 AD3d 1187, 138 NYS3d 111 ; Boody v El Sol Contr. & Constr. Corp. , 180 AD3d 863, 116 NYS3d 586 ; Pchelka v Southcroft, LLC , 178 AD3d 836, 115 NYS3d 382 ).

"To prevail on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, ‘a plaintiff must prove that the defendant violated the statute and that such violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries’ " ( Hossain v Condominium Bd. of Grand Professional Bldg. , 221 AD3d 981, 983, 200 NYS3d 437 [2d Dept 2023], quoting Exley v Cassell Vacation Homes, Inc. , 209 AD3d 839, 840, 175 NYS3d 579 [2d Dept 2023] ; see Wilson v Bergon Constr. Corp. , 219 AD3d 1380, 195 NYS3d 800 ). "Proximate cause may be established without direct evidence of causation, by inference from the circumstances of the accident; however, mere speculation as to the cause of an accident, when there could have been many possible causes, is fatal to a cause of action" ( Maisuradze v Nows The Time, Inc. , 219 AD3d 722, 724, 194 NYS3d 317 [2d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Grieve v MCRT Northeast Constr., LLC , 197 AD3d 623, 624, 153 NYS3d 80 [2d Dept 2022] ; see Steinsvaag v City of New York , 96 AD3d 932, 947 NYS2d 536 [2d Dept 2012] ). Accordingly, a defendant may make a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff cannot identify the cause of his or her accident without engaging in speculation (see Manzo v 372 Doughty...