FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/20/ :16 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 51 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/20/2017 E~H I B IT B

Transcription

1 E~H I B IT B

2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK BRIAN ALLMAN, -against- Plaintiff, THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NE~'V YORK AND NEW JERSEY, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATIaN, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION AND CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, AECUM, CRC ASSOCIATES INC., SHELTER GLBCTRIC MAINTL:NANCE CORP., SHE[_TER ELECTRIC ACQUISITION SUBSIDIARY LLC and ~UROTECFI CONSTRUCTION CORP., index No.: /14 PLAINTTFF'S YERIF[ED BILL OF PARTICULARS Defendants. P}aintiff, by his attorneys, MORELLI ALTERS RATNER LLP, respondinb to the demands of the DefendAnts THE PORT AUTHORITY nf NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, TISHiVLAl~i CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, TISHMAti CONSTRUCTION A1~ID CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, SIiELTER ELECTRIC MAIIV'TENANCE CORP., SHELTER ELECTRIC ACQUISITION SUBSIDIARY LLC and EUROTECIi CONSTRUCTION CORP., for a Verified Bili of Particulars, alleges, upon information and belief, as follows: Plaintiff s name is Brian A[Iman. Plaintiff is 54 years of age having been born on - Plaintiff's social security number wi[t not be provided within Plait~tif~s Verified Bill of particulars. Eutral Group [nt'1, LLC v. YHCL Vision Corp, 436 F. Supp. 2d 404 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). 2. The defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees were negligent and careless in the ownership, operation, maintenance, control, possession, supervision, direction, construction, inspection, renovation, rehabilitation and/or alteration of the said premises, and violated Sections 240(1), 24~ and 200 of the Labor Law, in that they failed to provide plaintiff with a safe place to work; failed to provide the plaintiff with a. hazard-free work place; failed to properly secure

3 items being hoisted; Failed to properly operate machinery and equipment; fai{ed to provide the plaintiff with proper and approved safety devices so placed, fixed and/or secured so as to afford proper protection to the plaintiff; failed to secure materials and equipment; failed to provide the plaintiff with approved safety devices; failed to properly control, direct and/or supervise the plaintiff with proper safety devices to placed as to afford proper protection to the plaintiff lawfully working thereat; failed to inspect the work areas on the date of the accident and prior thereto to see that said work area contained proper and approved safety devices and working area; failed to properly train and hire workers; tailed to provide proper guidance to forklift operators; failed to provide proper and safe hoists; failed to properly secure load attached to the forklift; failed to provide adequate lighting; and Failed to perform proper inspections of the work site to see and remedy the dangerous and defective conditions existing upon said work site. 3. The occurrence took place on July 17, at approximately 6:0o a.m., at the World Trade Center, New York, New York. 4. The occurrence took place at the World Trade Center, Vehicle Security Center, Level No. Z74, Ne~v York, New York. 5. Defendants' failure to provide adequate and adequately placed and secured safety equipment to Plaintiff was a violation of 240(t), 24l (b) and 200 of the New York State Labor Law, as well as of the appropriate sections of the NYS Labor Commissioner's Industrial Code. 6. Actual notice is not a prerequisite of Labor Law X240 and 241(6) claims. however, defendants created the dangerous condition. Moreover, with respect to plaintiff's allegations of common law and Section 200 negligence. Plaintiff believes that the following individuals employed by various defendants had notice of the dangerous activity: Chetah Patel of CRC Associates; Michael Arle of Eurotech Construction; Rober[ Mishlen of Shelter Electric Maintenance. Other witnesses of Defendant's who had actual notice are not known to Plaintiff at this time. 7. Constructive notice is not a prerequisite of Labor Law '240(1) and 24 I (6) claims. however, it is claimed in that the dangerous and defective conditions existed for such a length of time that. the

4 defendants, their agents, servants and,~or employees in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care knew or should have become aware of the existence of said dangerous aad defective conditions and attempted to remedy it. 8. Plaintiff BRIAN ALLMAN sustained the following injuries as a result of the occurrence: SEVERE CRUSH INNRY TO RIGHT FOOT; OPEN REDUCTION AND INTERNAL FiXATiON OF THE RIGHT GREAT TOE PROXIMAL PI3ALANX ON JULY 23, 2013; OPEN REDUCTION AND INTEKI~TAL FIXATION OF THE RIGHT FOURTH TOF, PROXIMAL PHALAI~TX ON JULY 23, 2013; HARDWARE AND PLATE REMOVAL SUI2GEY JUNE 2014; 2"D OPEN REDUCTIOI~T AND INTERNAL FIXATION SURERY JUNE 2014; NO MOTICIN TO MINIMAL MOTION AT RIGHT IP JOINT; RIGHT PROXIMAL PHALANX FRACTURE WITH MA.LALIGNMENT; DISPLACED FRACTURE RIGHT PROXIMAL 2ND, 3Rn AND 4iH PHALANGES COMMU~TITED FRACTURE OF THE SHAFT OF THE 15T PROXIMAL PHALANX WHICH EXTENDS TO THE MTPJ AND IS DORSALLY DISPLACED; SANGINOUS DRAINAGE RIGHT FOOT; INC1SIOlY TO 2ND AND 4'~" INTERSPACE RIGHT FOOT; STITCHES TO INCISIONS RIGHT FOOT; RIGHT MEDIAL KNEE ABRASION AND SWELLING; EXTREME PAIN AND DISCOMFORT. Loss of enjoyment of life. Pain and suffering continuing to date. All injuries are permanent. The above injuries are accompanied by severe pain, tenderness, swelling, stiffness, discomfort, distress, weakness, depression, stress, restriction of motion and with related injuries, damages, compromise and degeneration of the underlying soft tissues, blood vessels, bones, nerves, tendons, ligaments and musculature and all of the natural consequences flowing therefrom.

5 Aggravation, activation and/or precipitation of any underlying hypertrophic, degenerative, arthritic, circulatory, arterial, venous or systemic condition complained of. P(aintifFhas and wil[ continue to experience impairment, disruption and difficulties with daily activities, way of life and enjoyment of life including significant impairment of numerous daily activities that Plaintiff had previously taken for granted. Embarrassment, humiliation, self consciousness, e~notiona! anguish, depression, and distress. Limitations, diminution and/or impairment of functions; activities, vocation, avocation and other activities which Plaintiff engaged in prior to this accident. Also.see attached copies of medl reports and hospital records received to date. Pease take notice that to the extent Defendants) claim that any injuries sustained by the Plaintiff were caused by pre-existing and/or degenerative conditions, the Plaintiff alleges that any so claimed pre-existing and/or degenerative conditions were latent, inactive or dormant and were exacerbated, activated and/or agl rar ated by the acts and omissions of the Defendants) giving rise to the accident and injuries set forth herein. Subject to supplementation/amendment. 9. Please refer to response 8, supra: 10. Not applicable. Plaintiff is not claiming lost wages. 1 I. Plaintiff was confined to Beller ue Hospital, 462 First Avenue, New York, New York hospital on July 17, 2013 and was discharged on Ju(y 18, l2. Plaintiff was confined to bed for three and a half months following the accident. Plaintiff was confined to home for Seven. months following the accident and intermittently to date. l3. Special damages are to be provided at a later date, if applicable. Plaintiff was treated as follows: a. I-[ospitals: Bellevue Hospital Ccnter, 462 [first Avenue, New York, New York from July 17, 2013 through July 18, 2014; Torrance Memorial Emergency Room, 3330 Lomita Bivd, Torrance, CA From Juty 24, 2013 through July 25, b. Physicians:

6 Dr. Keri Zickuhr, Crenshaw Blvd. Suite l02 Torrance, CA is the plaintiff's treating physicians from July 22, 2013 through the present. c. Nurses: Please refer to hospitals listed above. d. Medicine: To be provided at a later date, if applicable. l4. Plaintiffs residential and postal address i 15. Plaintiff objects to this demand, as it is an improper demand in the context of a Bill of Particulars. 16. PlaintifFobjects to this demand, as it is an improper demand in the context of z Bill of Particulars. ] 7. Objection. Details of the manner in which the accident occurred are not required to be set forth in a Bill of Particulars. Dimarco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., l3 I A.D.2d 627 (2c~d Dept. 1987). Hempstead, S 14 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2nd Dept. 1987); Bouton v. County of Sut~olk, 509 N.Y.S.2d 856 (2nd Dept. 1986); Pniazzo v. Abbate, 45 A.D.2d 760 (2nd Dept. 1974).- This demand is l8. Objection. Details of the manner in which the accident occurred are not required to beset forth in a Bill of Particulars. Dimarco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 13I A.D.2d 627 (2nd Dept. (987)., Hempstead, 519 N.Y.S.2d 764 (Znd Dept. 1987); Bouton v. County of Suffolk, 509 N.Y.S2d 856 (2nd Dept. 1986); Palazzo v. Abbate, 45 A.D.2d 760 (2nd Dept. 1974). This demand is l9. Objection. Details of the manner in which the accident occurred are not required to be set forth in a Bill of Particulars. Dimarco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 131 A.D.2d 627 (2i~d Dept. 1987). Hempstead, 519 N.Y.S.2d 764 {2nd Dept. 148'n; Bouton v. County of Suffolk, 509 N.Y.S.2d 856 (2nd Dept. 1986); Palazzo v. Abbate, 45 A,D.2d 760 (2nd Dept. 1974). This demand is

7 20. Objection. Details of the manner in which the accident occurred are not required to be set Forth in a Bill of Particulars. Dimarco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., l31 A.D.2d 627 (2nd Dept. 1987). Hempstead, 519 N.Y.S_2d 764 (2nd Dept. 1987); Bouton v. County of Suffolk, 509 N.Y.S_2d 856 (2nd Dept. 1986); Palazzo v. Abbate, 45 A.D.2d 760 (2nd Dept ). This demand is 2 l. Please refer to response 5, suara. 22. Please refer to response 5, supra. 23. Objection. Details of the manner in which the accident occurred are not required to be set forth in a Bill of Particulars. Dimarco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 131 A.D.2d 627 (2nd Dept. 1987). Hempstead, 519 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2nd Dept. 1987); Bouton v. County of Suffolk, 509 N.Y.S.2d 856 (2nd Dept. 1986); Palazzo v. Abbate, 45 A.D.2d 760 (2nd Dept. 1974). This demand is 24. Objection. Details of the manner in which the accident occurred are not n;quired to be set forth in a Bill of Particulars. Dimarco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 131 A.D.2d 627 (2nd Dept. 1987). Hempstead, 519 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2nd Dept. 1987); Bouton v. County of Suffolk, 509 N.Y.S.2d 856 (2nd Dept. 1986); Palazzo v. Abbate, 45 A.D.2d 760 (2nd Dept. 1974). This demand is 25. Objection. Details of the manner in which the accident occurred are not required to be set forth in a Bitl of Particulars. Dimarco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 131 A.D.2d 627 (2nd Dept. 1987). Evidentiary materials are not required to be set forth in a Bill of Particulazs. Tu11y v. North Hempstead, 519 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2nd Dept. 19A7); Bouton v. County ofsuffolk, 509 N.Y.S.2d 856 (2nd Dept. ] 986); Palazzo v. Abbate, 45 A.D.2d 760 (2nd Dept. 1974). This demand is

8 26. Objection. Details of the manner in which the accident occurred are not required to be set forth in a Bill of Particulars. Dimarco v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 131 A.D.2d 627 (2nd Dept. 1987). Evidentiary materials are not required to be set forh in a Bill of Particulars, Tully v. North Hempstead, 519 N.Y.S.2d 764 (2nd Dcpt. 1987); E3outon v. County of Suffolk, 509 N.Y.S2d 856 (2nd Dept. 1986); Palazzo v. Abbate, 45 A.U.2d 760 (2nd Dept. 1974). This demand is Dated: New York, New York July 7, 2014 Yours, etc., MURELLI ALTERS RATNER LLP dam E. Deutsch Attorneys for Plaint BRYAN ALLMAN 777 Third Avenue, 3l Floor New York, New York (2l2) File No.: D1233 To: FUR1~tAN KORNFELD & BRENNAN LLP Kathryn C. Collins Attorneys far Defendants TI3E PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK And NEW JERSEY, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATI01v and TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION AND CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, SFIELTER ELECTRIC MAINTENAI~TCE CORP., SHELTER ELECTRIC ACQUISITION SUBSIDIARY LLC and EUROTECH CONSTRUCTION CORP., 570 Taxter Road, 5`h Floor Elmsford, New York (9 ] 4) FKB Fife No.:

9 ATTORI~TEY'S VERIFICATION STATE OF NF,W YORK, COUNTY OF NEW YORK (, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New Yor[c Siate, state under penalty of perjury that I am one ofthe attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the within action: I have read the foregoing VERIFIED BILL OF PARTICULARS and know the contents thereof the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters [believe to be true. The reason this verification is made by me and not by my clients, is that my clients are not presently in the County where I maintain my offices. The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my c~wn knowledge are the materials in my filc and the investigations conducted by my office. Dated: New Yor[c, New York July 7, 2014 ~1~~

10 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK, CUtJNTY OF NEW YORK ss.: SHERMIN SHAKIRI, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am over 18 years of a~;e, I am not a party to the action, and ~ reside in Kings County in the State of New York. I served a true copy of the annexed on July 7, 2014 PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED BILL OF PARTICULARS by mailing the same in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid thereon, in a post office or official depository of the U.S. Postal Service within the State of New York, addressed to the last known address of the addressee as indicated below: To: FUIt~vIAN K.ORNFELD & BRENNAN LLP Kathryn C. Collins Attorneys_fo~ Defenclanls THE PORT AUT~IORITY OF NEW Y~ItK And NEW JERSEY, TISHIVIAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and TISHMAN CONSTRUCTIOI~i AND C~RPORA.TiON OF NEW YORK, SHELTER ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE CORP., SHELTER ELECTRIC ACQUISITION SUBSIDIARY LLC and EUROTECH CONSTRUCTIOi~1 CORP.,.570 Taxter Road, 5th Floor Elmsford, New York (914) FKB File No.: S RMIN SHAKIRI Sworn to before me July 7, 2014 l,~4`` " ~.~. Notary~~~~ Public, Sfate of New York No. 01 CEifiU48~16 ~~.~aiif~ed in Kings ~'ounty Co~rm;ssion Expires October 2, 20R2~ ~-~-

11 1VIOI~ELLI ALTERS ~tatner LLP_ Adaan E. Deutsch, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff 950.Third Aj~enue New York, NY $00