NYCHA Gets Out on Summary Judgment; Second Department Pulls Them Back In
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department modified a Supreme Court, Kings County order that granted Defendant New York City Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) causes of action.
In Magistro v. New York City Housing Authority, 2025 NY Slip Op 00852, plaintiff was allegedly injured while working as a plumber on a project involving the replacement of an underground leaking water pipe by the plaintiff’s employer at the premises owned by NYCHA. To access the pipe, part of the sidewalk had to be broken up, and a hold approximately four feet deep was created using an excavator. At the time of the incident, plaintiff and a coworker were manually loading pieces of broken concrete from inside and outside the hole into the excavator bucket, which was on the ground level near the hole. Plaintiff was “waist high” in the hole, and his co-worker was at ground level. When plaintiff placed a slab into the excavator bucket, his co-worker “slammed” a piece of concrete into the bucket directly on top of plaintiff’s right hand.
Prior to the exchange of written discovery and before any depositions were held, NYCHA moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff opposed the motion and moved for leave to amend his Bill of Particulars to assert violations of certain additional Industrial Code provisions and for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action against NYCHA. The Supreme Court, Kings County granted NYCHA’s motion and denied plaintiff’s motion.
The Appellate Division, Second Department disagreed noting that NYCHA’s motion was made before written discovery was exchanged and depositions were taken, and plaintiff demonstrated that discovery with respect to the relevant issues was exclusively within the knowledge of NYCHA, and was necessary to oppose NYCHA’s motion for summary judgment.
Opposition to summary judgment motions on the grounds that the motion is premature is a common argument in New York. However, the “premature” argument comes with its own burden of proof, requiring a showing that knowledge or information pertinent to the issues is exclusively within the knowledge of the party seeking dismissal.
The Magistro decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.