Christopher L. Parisi Wins Summary Judgment and Dismissal of New York Labor Law Case in Queens County

Christopher L. Parisi, a Partner in our New York Labor Law construction practice, won summary judgment in the case Howard Ashman v. New York Convention Center Development Corporation d/b/a Jacob K. Javits Center, et al. (Supreme Court, Queens County).  The Order dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against our clients, including common law negligence and claims pursuant to New York Labor Law Sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6).  The dismissal was obtained prior to depositions and before significant discovery proceedings took place.  In this case, the plaintiff alleges that he was injured in 2019 while working for a concrete subcontractor on the expansion project of the Jacob Javits Convention Center in Manhattan.

Our clients are a holding company and its subsidiary telecommunications installation company. In 2014, the telecommunications company had proposed an internet cabinet installation project at the Jacob Javits Center, which had not gone forward.  This proposed project was not part of the Jacob Javits Center expansion project, which started years later.

When the telecommunications subsidiary was acquired by the holding company in 2017, a document was filed on ACRIS, New York City’s real estate records database, which recorded the transfer of non-possessory telecommunications utility easements from the subsidiary to the parent company.  The Jacob Javits address had been listed in the utility easement transfer document, along with over two hundred-seventy other addresses.

In support of our Motion, we submitted a detailed client Affidavit that explained the meaning and purpose of the ACRIS document and established that our clients did not have an ownership interest in the project, or any control or involvement with the construction activities.  In opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the Affidavit was defective and that the ACRIS document established our clients’ ownership interest or control over the property and expansion project.  The Honorable Justice Frederick D.R. Sampson decided that our Motion and the Affidavit demonstrated that our clients  “did not own the property, control, or supervise any of the work being performed, nor had Defendants performed any construction work at the premises.”  In granting summary judgment, the Court held, “…it appears that moving Defendants were named herein due to a recorded non-possessory utility easement, which does not confer an ownership interest.”