Schiff v. Intersystem S&S Corp.

Schiff v Intersystem S&S Corp.

2025 NY Slip Op 31012(U)

March 31, 2025

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 155656/2019

Judge: Paul A. Goetz

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. PAUL A. GOETZ PART 47

Justice

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 155656/2019

JOSEPH SCHIFF,

04/23/2024,

Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 08/22/2024

-v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 006

INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP., INTERSYSTEM

INSTALLATION CORP., MCRB SERVICES CORP., MCRB

CORP., THE APPLE BANK BUILDING CONDOMINIUM, DECISION + ORDER ON

2112 BROADWAY MANAGEMENT, LLC., MOTION

Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 171, 172, 173, 174,

175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 193, 194, 199, 200, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255,

256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276,

277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 292, 293, 298, 300, 307, 308

were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 201, 202, 203, 204,

205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 225, 238, 239, 240,

241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 291, 294, 295, 296, 297, 299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305,

306

were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER) .

In this personal injury action arising from plaintiff’s trip and fall over scaffolding

materials on a sidewalk, defendant Intersystem S&S Corp. (Intersystem) moves pursuant to

CPLR § 3212 for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint and all crossclaims

asserted against it (MS #5). Plaintiff cross-moves (i) pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2) for an order

sanctioning Intersystem for spoliation and (ii) pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for summary judgment

on the issue of Intersystem’s liability, and dismissing Intersystem’s first affirmative defense for

comparative negligence (MS #5). Defendant The Apple Bank Building Condominium (Apple

Bank) moves (i) pursuant to CPLR § 3025 for leave to file an amended answer asserting a

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 1 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

1 of 15

[* 1]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

crossclaim against Intersystem for breach of contract; and (ii) pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for

summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint as against it, on its common law

indemnification claim as against Intersystem, and on its breach of contract claim as against

Intersystem (MS #6). Plaintiff cross-moves pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for summary judgment on

the issue of Apple Bank’s liability and dismissing several of its affirmative defenses (MS #6).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Competency

Plaintiff’s accident occurred on February 20, 2017, and plaintiff initiated this action on

June 6, 2019 (NYSCEF Doc No 1). Plaintiff was originally scheduled to be deposed on March 3,

2021, however, the deposition was delayed due to concerns regarding his mental competency

(NYSCEF Doc Nos 77, 186 [“It is undisputed that Plaintiff [] suffers from cognitive decline

dating back to before the accident”]). Based on a competency hearing held on October 6, 2021,

and a review of plaintiff’s records, the court determined that plaintiff was not competent to

testify as to the facts and circumstances surrounding his accident (NYSCEF Doc No 101).

Plaintiff’s domestic partner of many years, Phyllis Schwartz, was appointed as guardian ad litem

for the purposes of representing his interests and prosecuting the instant action (id.).

Location & Relationship of Parties

Apple Bank owned the bank located at 2112 Broadway, New York, NY 10023 (the

building) where plaintiff’s accident occurred; non-party The Andrews Organization was the

property management company for the building (NYSCEF Doc No 212). Intersystem was hired

to install a sidewalk shed against the façade of the building for use during a construction project

(NYSCEF Doc No 213).

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 2 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

2 of 15

[* 2]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

The contract for the installation of the sidewalk shed, dated January 30, 2017, “is a

standard form that Intersystem used for their contracts” (NYSCEF Doc no 210, p. 228). The

Andrews Organization is named at the top of the document (id.). Apple Bank is not referenced in

the contract, however, the contract is signed by Richard Rathe of Apple Bank as the “customer”

(id.) and Rathe testified that he was signing on behalf of Apple Bank (NYSCEF Doc No 211, pp.

83-84 [but also noting that the terms of the agreement had been negotiated by The Andrews

Organization]). Vice President of The Andrews Organization Stuart Smolar states that “The

Andrews Organization did not enter into a contract with Intersystem S&S Corp. dated January

30, 2017 . . . Rather, the contract is between The Apple Bank Building Condominium and

Intersystem S&S Corp. only” (NYSCEF Doc No 217 [also noting The Andrews Organization did

not pay for Intersystem’s work]). The contract provides: “Intersystems Corporation agrees to

name Customer and such other entities as the customer shall request in writing, as additional

insured as evidenced by a Certificate of Insurance” (NYSCEF Doc No 213 § 12).

Jorge Molina, the former president and sole owner of Intersystem, testified that

installation of sidewalk sheds requires materials such as poles, brackets, connectors, planks, and

plywood (NYSCEF Doc No 181, pp. 25-27). Molina further stated that these materials would not

be on the sidewalk unless the workers were actively in the process of constructing the shed (id.,

pp. 123-24).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on February 20, 2017, as he was walking on the

sidewalk on West 73rd Street, between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue, “he was caused to trip

and be violently precipitated to the ground by the defective, dangerous, debris filled, trap like

and unsafe condition of the [] premises” and sustained injuries as a result (NYSCEF Doc No 1 ¶¶

15, 198).

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 3 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

3 of 15

[* 3]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

Schwartz’s Testimony

Schwartz testified that plaintiff had left their apartment to pick up milk and called to let

her know he was on his way back (NYSCEF Doc No 180, p. 64). However, plaintiff did not

return, and sometime later, the police called to tell Schwartz that plaintiff “fell on [] scaffolding

and [] was in an ambulance” (id., pp. 64-66). Schwartz quickly hailed a taxi and rode to the

location of plaintiff’s accident, which was “less than five minutes” away from their apartment

(id., p. 8). Upon arriving, she observed “an ambulance where [plaintiff] was [and] the scaffolding

strewn across the sidewalk” (id., p. 9 [“there were metal rods, [] wood planks, and there was also

blood”]). Schwartz testified that “[w]hile [plaintiff] was lying in the ambulance, he was kind of

groggy, but he pointed and said, ‘I fell on that scaffolding’” (id., p. 14). Schwartz stated that after

speaking with plaintiff, she exited the ambulance to look for someone in charge, and found

Intersystem supervisor and project manager Michael Badzio, who “told [her] that [plaintiff] had

fallen on the scaffolding poles and boards” (NYSCEF Doc No 256).

Witnesses & Reports

Jacek Kolano, a former driver for Intersystem, was “standing on the sidewalk by [his]

truck, which was far away from” plaintiff at the time plaintiff fell (NYSCEF Doc No 244).

Kolano stated that at the time, Intersystem workers “were in the process of installing a

shed/scaffolding on the sidewalk” (id.). Kolano “did not witness the pedestrian fall nor [] see

what, if anything, caused him to fall,” however, he “did see poles for scaffolding on the sidewalk

in the vicinity of where [plaintiff] fell” (id.).

A police report filed by officer Anthony Sinacori states: “Victim did trip over materials

being used to build scaffolding in front of location” (NYSCEF Doc No 245). Officer Sinacori did

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 4 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

4 of 15

[* 4]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

not witness the accident first-hand but described the accident as it was conveyed to him by

plaintiff (NYSCEF Doc No 288, p. 45).

DISCUSSION

Summary Judgment (MS #5 & MS #6)

i. Summary Judgment Standard

“It is well settled that ‘the proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima

facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to

demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact’” (Pullman v Silverman, 28 NY3d 1060,

1062 [2016], quoting Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). “Failure to make

such showing requires denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers”

(Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985] [internal citations omitted]).

“Once such a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the

motion to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to raise material issues of fact

which require a trial of the action” (Cabrera v Rodriguez, 72 AD3d 553, 553-554 [1st Dept

2010], citing Alvarez, 68 NY2d at 342).

“The court’s function on a motion for summary judgment is merely to determine if any

triable issues exist, not to determine the merits of any such issues or to assess credibility”

(Meridian Mgmt. Corp. v Cristi Cleaning Serv. Corp., 70 AD3d 508, 510-511 [1st Dept 2010]

[internal citations omitted]). The evidence presented in a summary judgment motion must be

examined “in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” (Schmidt v One New York Plaza

Co., 153 AD3d 427, 428 [2017], quoting Ortiz v Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335, 339

[2011]) and bare allegations or conclusory assertions are insufficient to create genuine issues of

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 5 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

5 of 15

[* 5]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

fact (Rotuba Extruders v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 231 [1978]). If there is any doubt as to the

existence of a triable fact, the motion for summary judgment must be denied (id.).

ii. Plaintiff’s Causes of Action as Against Intersystem (MS #5)

Intersystem moves pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for summary judgment dismissing

plaintiff’s complaint as against it, arguing that Intersystem only assumed contractual obligations

under its agreement with Apple Bank and did not fall into any of the “three situations in which a

party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care—

and thus be potentially liable in tort—to third persons” (Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98

NY2d 136, 140 [2002]). Specifically, Intersystem asserts that it did not create or exacerbate a

dangerous condition which proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries; plaintiff did not detrimentally

rely on the continued performance of Intersystem’s duties; and Intersystem did not entirely

replace Apple Bank’s duty to maintain the safety of the premises for passersby (NYSCEF Doc

No 185). Intersystem further argues that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed because plaintiff

cannot identify the cause of his fall without engaging in speculation, as he is not competent to

testify as to the facts and circumstances of his accident and Schwartz’s testimony as to plaintiff’s

description of the accident is inadmissible hearsay (id.).

Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment on the issue of Intersystem’s liability,

arguing that plaintiff submitted direct and circumstantial evidence in admissible form

establishing that plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell over the materials strewn across

the sidewalk; specifically, plaintiff argues that plaintiff’s statement to Schwartz about the cause

of his fall is admissible under the excited utterance exception, and Badzio’s statement to

Schwartz is admissible under the speaking agent exception (NYSCEF Doc No 253). Plaintiff

also argues that Badzio’s and plaintiff’s statements as recounted by Schwartz and officer

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 6 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

6 of 15

[* 6]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

Sinacori must be considered on the instant motion, regardless of whether they constitute hearsay

statements; and that plaintiff did, in fact, identify the cause of his fall on the date of his accident,

at which time he was mentally competent to describe what happened (id.).

“Hearsay [] cannot be considered as evidence to support a motion for summary

judgment” (Vera v Low Income Mktg. Corp., 145 AD3d 509, 515 [1st Dept 2016] [emphasis

added]), however, it “may be considered to defeat a motion for summary judgment as long as it

is not the only evidence submitted in opposition” (Fountain v Ferrara, 118 AD3d 416, 416 [1st

Dept 2014] [emphasis added]).

Here, Intersystem failed to meet its prima facie burden of establishing that it did not

“launch[] a force or instrument of harm” (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140 [internal quotation marks

omitted]). Contrary to Intersystem’s contention, there is sufficient evidence suggesting that

Intersystem created the hazardous condition, i.e., the placement of materials on the sidewalk

(NYSCEF Doc Nos 180, p. 9 [Schwartz observed shortly after the accident that “the scaffolding

[was] strewn across the sidewalk”]; 244 [Kolano stating that “at the time the pedestrian fell,

workers for Intersystem were in the process of installing a shed/scaffolding on the sidewalk”]).

Therefore, this falls into one of the three situations in which the contracting party assumes a duty

of care to plaintiff (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 140).

Nor has Intersystem established that “there could have been many possible causes” for

plaintiff’s accident and that “plaintiff cannot identify the cause of [his] fall without engaging in

[mere] speculation” (Gardell v Arden Ave. Homeowners Assn., 228 AD3d 834, 835 [2nd Dept

2024] [considering “deposition testimony concerning the statements that the decedent made to

the plaintiff and the nonparty witness”]). Plaintiff’s evidence—including Schwartz’s testimony

that plaintiff “pointed and said, ‘I fell on that scaffolding’” (NYSCEF Doc No 180, p. 14) and

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 7 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

7 of 15

[* 7]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

that Badzio “told [her] that [plaintiff] had fallen on the scaffolding poles and boards” (NYSCEF

Doc No 256)—“provides a nonspeculative basis for [plaintiff’s] version of the accident and

sufficiently establishes a nexus between the hazardous condition and the circumstances of [his]

fall” (Peña v Tyrax Realty Mgt., Inc., 150 AD3d 440, 440 [1st Dept 2017]).

As for plaintiff’s cross-motion, the parties disagree over whether Schwartz’s testimony

regarding plaintiff’s and Badzio’s description of the accident is admissible. However, even if this

evidence is considered, it fails to establish Intersystem’s liability as a matter of law. Plaintiff

allegedly stated that he “had fallen on the scaffolding” and Badzio allegedly stated that plaintiff

had “fallen on the scaffolding poles and boards” but plaintiff is “unable to recall in any

meaningful detail the circumstances surrounding [his] fall” and no witness to the accident has

been identified (Londner v Big V Supermarkets, Inc., 309 AD2d 1122, 1122 [3rd Dept 2003]).

Therefore, viewing the evidence submitted in the light most favorable to Intersystem, it cannot

be determined on the papers submitted that plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by

Intersystem’s negligence.

Accordingly, the part of Intersystem’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal

of plaintiff’s complaint as against it will be denied; and the part of plaintiff’s cross-motion

seeking summary judgment on the issue of Intersystem’s liability will be denied.

iii. Plaintiff’s Causes of Action as Against Apple Bank (MS #6)

Apple Bank moves pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for summary judgment dismissing

plaintiff’s complaint as against it, arguing that it did not create or have notice of the alleged

dangerous condition that caused plaintiff’s fall. However, Apple Bank provides no support for

this assertion in its moving papers (NYSCEF Doc No 203 [merely stating that “the proof

establishes that Apple Bank did not have actual or constructive notice of an alleged defect”]); it

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 8 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

8 of 15

[* 8]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

only raises supporting evidence in its reply (NYSCEF Doc No 303). Apple Bank therefore failed

to make its prima facie showing that it was not negligent.

Plaintiff cross-moves pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for summary judgment on the issue of

Apple Bank’s liability, arguing that Apple Bank, as the owner of the premises, had a non-

delegable duty to keep the property safe, and plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to establish

that plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell over the materials strewn across the sidewalk

(id.). However, as explained supra, plaintiff is “unable to recall in any meaningful detail the

circumstances surrounding [his] fall” and no witness to the accident has been identified

(Londner, 309 AD2d at 1122). Therefore, viewing the evidence submitted in the light most

favorable to Apple Bank, it cannot be determined as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injuries were

proximately caused by Apple Bank’s negligence.

Accordingly, the part of Apple Bank’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal

of plaintiff’s complaint as against it will be denied; and the part of plaintiff’s cross-motion

seeking summary judgment on the issue of Apple Bank’s liability will be denied.

iv. Intersystem’s & Apple Bank’s Affirmative Defenses

Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment against Intersystem (MS #5) seeks

dismissal of its affirmative defense for comparative negligence on the basis that Intersystem

failed to allege any facts indicating that plaintiff was negligent (NYSCEF Doc No 253).

Intersystem did not address this argument in its opposition to the cross-motion (NYSCEF Doc

No 307). Accordingly, the part of plaintiff’s cross-motion seeking to dismiss Intersystem’s (MS

#5) affirmative defense for comparative negligence will be granted.

Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment against Apple Bank (MS #6) seeks

dismissal of its affirmative defenses for: comparative negligence (first), failure to mitigate

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 9 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

9 of 15

[* 9]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

damages (third), assumption of the risk (fifth), and independent culpable act (sixth). Similarly,

Apple Bank did not address these defenses in its opposition (NYSCEF Doc No 305).

Accordingly, the part of plaintiff’s cross-motion seeking to dismiss Apple Bank’s (MS #6) first,

third, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses will be granted.

v. Apple Bank’s Crossclaims Against Intersystem

Intersystem moves pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for summary judgment dismissing Apple

Bank’s crossclaims as against it for contractual and common law indemnification and

contribution (MS #5). It argues that Apple Bank is not entitled to contractual indemnification

because there was no contract between the parties and Apple Bank has not established that it is

free from negligence; and that Apple Bank is not entitled to common law indemnification or

contribution because it has not established that Intersystem was negligent (NYSCEF Doc No

185). In its opposition, Apple Bank withdraws its crossclaim for contractual indemnification but

argues that it is entitled to common law indemnification and contribution (NYSCEF Doc No

273). As stated supra, Intersytem’s negligence or lack thereof cannot be determined at this stage,

and therefore, Intersystem is not entitled to dismissal of Apple Bank’s remaining crossclaims as

a matter of law.

Apple Bank moves pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for summary judgment on its common law

indemnification crossclaim and its proposed breach of contract crossclaim as against Intersystem

(MS #6). Like Intersystem, Apple Bank’s negligence lack thereof cannot be determined at this

stage, and therefore, Apple Bank is not entitled to summary judgment on its common law

indemnification claim as a matter of law. Additionally, it would be premature to consider Apple

Bank’s arguments on the merits of its crossclaim for breach of contract, as it has not yet amended

its answer to include this crossclaim (see infra for discussion of the motion to amend).

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 10 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

10 of 15

[* 10]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

Accordingly, the part of Intersystem’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal

of Apple Bank’s crossclaims as against it will be granted with respect to its crossclaim for

contractual indemnification and otherwise denied (MS #5); and the part of Apple Bank’s motion

seeking summary judgment on its crossclaims against Intersystem for common law

indemnification and breach of contract will be denied (MS #6).

Sanctions (MS #5)

Plaintiff cross-moves pursuant to CPLR § 3126(2) for an order sanctioning Intersystem

for spoliation on the grounds that though Intersystem had notice of plaintiff’s intention to litigate

within three weeks of his accident, “Intersystem failed to preserve [] records relating to

[plaintiff’s] claim – including incident reports, emails, email addresses, text messages, and phone

numbers of employees (other than Mr. Kolano) who were present and working,” and therefore,

“none of the Intersystem employees who were next to [plaintiff] when he was on the ground[]

can be identified and/or deposed” (NYSCEF Doc No 253). Plaintiff notes that when Molina shut

down his business (Intersystem) in December of 2020, he failed to preserve payroll records from

2017, his email login credentials, the phone he used in 2017, and other important records (id.).

Intersystem argues that plaintiff failed to meet all of the necessary elements to justify

imposing spoliation sanctions because “[n]owhere in plaintiff’s exhibits [] does the plaintiff

affirmatively request the preservation of all witness information for the Intersystem employees at

the subject location on the date of plaintiff’s accident” (NYSCEF Doc No 307). Additionally,

Intersystem asserts that “[i]n the period of time between the 2017 letter and the 2020 dissolution

of Intersystem, plaintiff’s counsel made no effort to obtain witness information from Molina,”

and therefore the fact that there are missing records “reflects nothing more than Molina’s good

faith effort to wrap up” his business (id.)

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 11 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

11 of 15

[* 11]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

“A party seeking sanctions based on the spoliation of evidence must demonstrate: (1) that

the party with control over the evidence had an obligation to preserve it at the time it was

destroyed; (2) that the records were destroyed with a ‘culpable state of mind’; and finally, (3)

that the destroyed evidence was relevant to the party's claim or defense such that the trier of fact

could find that the evidence would support that claim or defense” (VOOM HD Holdings LLC v

EchoStar Satellite LLC, 93 AD3d 33, 45 [1st Dept 2012], citing Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC,

220 FRD 212 [SDNY 2003]). “In the absence of pending litigation or notice of a specific claim,

a defendant should not be sanctioned for discarding items in good faith and pursuant to its

normal business practices” (Sanders v 210 N. 12th St., LLC, 171 AD3d 966, 968 [2nd Dept

2019]).

The preliminary status conference in this matter contemplated that all parties would

exchange names and addresses of all witnesses by March 4, 2020 (NYSCEF Doc No 33), before

Molina shut down his business. None of the subsequent conference orders—the last of which is

from October 2022—reference the exchange of witness information (NYSCEF Doc Nos 41, 75,

108, 124, 130, 133); therefore, plaintiff waived his right to this information from Intersystem

(Alvarez v Feola, 140 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2016] [“defendant waived his right to a medical

examination since he ‘willfully refused or simply failed to avail [himself] of the opportunity’ to

conduct plaintiff’s medical examination within the deadlines set forth in the preliminary and

compliance conference orders”] [quoting Rosenberg & Estis, P.C. v Bergos, 18 AD3d 218, 218

[1st Dept 2005]).

Accordingly, the part of plaintiff’s cross-motion seeking sanctions against Intersystem

will be denied, and the parties will be scheduled to appear for a status conference since the note

of issue has not been filed.

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 12 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

12 of 15

[* 12]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

Amended Answer (MS #6)

Apple Bank moves pursuant to CPLR § 3025 for leave to file an amended answer to

include a crossclaim against Intersystem for breach of contract. Apple Bank asserts that good

cause exists to amend its answer “because the deposition testimony obtained more than two years

after Apple Bank filed its Verified Answer illustrates that . . . Apple Bank was to be [] insured

under the contract” for Intersystem’s services (NYSCEF Doc No 203).

The parties disagree over which entity is the “customer” in the January 30, 2017 contract,

and therefore which entity was entitled to insurance coverage. As Apple Bank notes, Rathe of

Apple Bank is the only signatory to the contract, and he testified that he signed on Apple Bank’s

behalf; and Smolar of The Andrews Organization asserts that Apple Bank was the customer, not

The Andrews Organization, as further evidenced by the fact that The Andrews Organization did

not pay for the work Intersystem performed (NYSCEF Doc Nos 203, 303). As Intersystem notes,

however, Apple Bank is not referenced in the agreement whatsoever, and Rathe also testified that

The Andrews Organization negotiated the terms of the contract (NYSCEF Doc No 296).

“Leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted in the absence of prejudice or

surprise so long as the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient as a matter of law”

(Mashinsky v Drescher, 188 AD3d 465, 466 [1st Dept 2020]). Given the ambiguity of the

contract—notably, the term “customer” is not defined therein—the proposed counterclaim is not

“palpably insufficient as a matter of law.” Nor has Intersystem demonstrated that amending the

answer would be prejudicial (NYSCEF Doc No 296 [incorrectly asserting that “the amended

pleadings would make the currently pending motions for summary judgment premature”]).

Accordingly, the part of Apple Bank’s motion seeking leave to amend its answer will be

granted.

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 13 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

13 of 15

[* 13]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the part of Intersystem’s motion for summary judgment (MS #5) seeking

dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint as against it is denied; and the part of plaintiff’s cross-motion

seeking summary judgment on the issue of Intersystem’s liability is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the part of Apple Bank’s motion for summary judgment (MS #6)

seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint as against it is denied; and the part of plaintiff’s cross-

motion seeking summary judgment on the issue of Apple Bank’s liability is denied; and it is

further

ORDERED that the part of plaintiff’s cross-motion seeking to dismiss Intersystem’s

affirmative defense for comparative negligence (MS #5), and the part of plaintiff’s cross-motion

seeking to dismiss Apple Bank’s first, third, fifth, and sixth affirmative defenses (MS #6) is

granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the part of Intersystem’s motion for summary judgment (MS #5) seeking

dismissal of Apple Bank’s crossclaims as against it is granted with respect to Apple Bank’s

crossclaim for contractual indemnification and otherwise denied; and the part of Apple Bank’s

motion seeking summary judgment on its crossclaims against Intersystem for common law

indemnification and breach of contract is denied (MS #6); and it is further

ORDERED that the part of plaintiff’s cross-motion seeking sanctions against Intersystem

(MS #5) is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the part of Apple Bank’s motion seeking leave to amend its answer (MS

#6) is granted; and it is therefore

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 14 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

14 of 15

[* 14]

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/31/2025 02:50 PM INDEX NO. 155656/2019

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 310 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/31/2025

ORDERED that the amended answer, in the form annexed to the motion papers

(NYSCEF Doc No 221), shall be deemed timely served upon service of a copy of this order with

notice of entry upon all parties who have appeared in the action; and it is further

ORDERED that the parties are directed to appear for an in-person status conference on

April 24, 2025.

3/31/2025

DATE PAUL A. GOETZ, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□

GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

155656/2019 SCHIFF, JOSEPH vs. INTERSYSTEM S&S CORP. Page 15 of 15

Motion No. 005 006

15 of 15

[* 15]