The opinion
Camas v Cascade 553, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 33016(U)
July 28, 2025
Supreme Court, Kings County
Docket Number: Index No. 525109/2018
Judge: Ingrid Joseph
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: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:40 PM INDEX NO. 525109/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 477 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025
At an IAS Term, Part 83, of the
Supreme Court of the State of New
York, held in and for the County of
Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360
AdamsA~1r_eet, Brooklyn, New York,
on the 1C.__ aay o f ~ , 2025.
HON. INGRID JOSEPH, J.S.C.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ANGEL CAMAS, Index No.: 525109/2018
Plaintiff,
-against- DECISION & ORDER
Mot. Seq. Nos. 10, 17, 18, 19
CASCADE 553, LLC and EMPIRE ID CONSTRUCTION
CORP,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
CASCADE 553, LLC and EMPIRE ID CONSTRUCTION
CORP,
Third-Party Plaintiffs,
-against-
CAPITAL CONCRETE NY INC.,
Third-Party Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos. :
Mot Seq. 10
Notice of Motion/Affirmation in Support/Exhibits .................................. . 244-263
Affirmation in Opposition ................ ............................ ............................. . 283
Mot Seq. 17
Notice of Motion/Affirmation in Support/Exhibits ................................. . 385-393
Affirmation in Opposition (Capital Concrete) ......................................... . 448
Affirmation in Opposition (Cascade 553 and Empire ID) ...................... .. 460
Reply Affirmation .................................................................................... . 470
Mot Seq. 18
Notice of Motion/Affirmation in Support................................................ . 395-396
Affirmation in Opposition ....................................................................... . 405
Reply Affirmation ................................................................................... . 431
Mot Seq. 19
Notice of Motion/Affirmation in Support................................................ . 410-411
Affirmation in Opposition ....................................................................... . 452
Reply Affirmation ................................................................................... . 459
1
1 of 7
[* 1]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:40 PM INDEX NO. 525109/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 477 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025
In this action, Angel Camas ("Plaintff') moves (Mot. Seq. No .10) for an order granting leave
to renew this Court's decision, dated June 29, 2023, denying Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Labor Law§§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). Defendants and third-party plaintiffs Cascade 553 LLC
("Cascade") and Empire ID Construction Corp ("Empire") (collectively, "Defendants") oppose the
motion. Plaintiff also moves (Mot. Seq. No. 17) for an order granting trial preference pursuant to CPLR
3403 (a). Third-party defendant Capital Concrete NY Inc. ("Capital") opposes the motion.
Additionally, Capital moves (Mot. Seq. No. 18) for leave to reargue this Court's decision dated March
13, 2025, precluding Capital from producing evidence that Plaintiff was not present at the time of the
accident. Upon re-argument, Capital seeks a more narrowly tailored decision allowing it to present
witness testimony at trial. Plaintiff opposes this motion. Capital also moves (Mot. Seq. No. 19) to (1)
vacate the Note oflssue and Certificate of Readiness and to (2) strike the action from the trial calendar
pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202. 7. Plaintiff also opposes this motion.
The pending motions arise out of an alleged jobsite accident that occurred on October 8, 2018,
at 883 Myrtle Avenue in Kings County, New York. Plaintiff alleges that he suffered injuries due to
common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law§§ 200,240 (1) and 241 (6). Plaintiff brought
suit against Cascade and Empire with a summons and complaint dated December 13, 2018. Cascade
and Empire commenced a third-party action against Capital as a third-party defendant with a summons
and complaint dated April 23, 2019. A Note of Issue was filed on April 12, 2022. On April 18, 2024,
the Note oflssue was vacated by Judge Fisher to enable further discovery. Now, the Court will address
motion sequence 10 followed by motion sequences 17-19.
In support of his motion to renew (Mot. Seq. No. 10), Plaintiff asserts that the Court denied his
motion for summary judgment by finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Plaintiff was
employed within the meaning of Labor Law at the time of the accident. Plaintiff claims that newly
discovered evidence resolves the factual issue of his presence or absence at the time of the alleged
accident in his favor. Plaintiff submits depositions from Gunter Hassler, Leonardo Paredes, and
Fernando Game, co-workers who testified that they (a) were at the jobsite on the subject date, (b) can
identify Plaintiff, and (c) rushed to help Plaintiff up after his fall on October 8, 2018. Moreover,
Plaintiff argues that a newly submitted accident report and ambulance report corroborate his narrative.
Plaintiff blames Capital's failure to disclose eyewitness employees, their denial of the existence of any
accident reports, and their failure to identify the on-site supervisor in the initial round of discovery, for
not introducing this evidence with the first motion.
In opposition to Plaintiff's motion, Defendants note that the accident report was previously
considered by the Court in its initial decision, so it should not be considered as new evidence on a
2
2 of 7
[* 2]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:40 PM INDEX NO. 525109/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 477 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025
motion to renew. Defendants also aver that Plaintiff provides no reason to justify why it previously
failed to bring the ambulance report and produce these new witnesses. Defendants further argue that
even if the Court were to consider these new pieces of evidence, they serve to complicate, not resolve,
the factual disputes. In particular, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's lateness in introducing the newly
identified witnesses creates new factual questions about their credibility.
Third-party defendant Capital's motion to reargue (Mot. Seq. No. 18) is based on the Court's
March 13, 2025, preclusion order (the "preclusion order") arising from Plaintiffs motion to preclude
on the grounds that Capital failed to produce (i) its principal Moses Kahan for a deposition and (ii) the
safety meeting sign-in sheets from the morning of the alleged accident. In partially granting Plaintiffs
motion, the Court precluded Capital's foreman or other witnesses from testifying or producing
evidence at trial that Plaintiff was not present at the jobsite on the day of the accident.
Since the preclusion order was granted in response to Capital's failure to produce safety
meeting sign in sheets in response to Plaintiffs demand for documentary attendance records, Capital
argues that it should only be precluded from producing other documentary evidence regarding
Plaintiffs attendance, such as the electronic timesheet from October 8, 2018. Rather than just
precluding Capital from introducing documentary evidence, the Court precluded it from introducing
any evidence suggesting that Plaintiff was not at the jobsite at the time of the alleged accident,
including witness testimony. In doing so, Capital argues that the Court improperly conflated the
documentary attendance records with eyewitness testimony. Capital contends that their eyewitness
testimony from supervisor Ulfred Patino ("Patino") was firsthand and unrelated to any documentary
evidence. Thus, Capital claims that there is no reason to exclude it. Patino testified that he never saw
Plaintiff at the jobsite the day of the alleged accident, that Patino previously knew Plaintiff, and that
he remembered the day well because it was supposed to be Plaintiffs first day. Capital indicates that
Plaintiff will produce witnesses addressing Plaintiffs presence or lack thereof at the jobsite. Thus,
Capital claims that it is being unfairly penalized by being restricted from producing their own
competing testimony.
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Capital is improperly seeking to relitigate issues already
decided before this Court. Plaintiff also notes that the order was granted not just in response to Capital's
failure to produce the sign in sheets but also its failure to produce its principal, Moses Kahan.
Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Capital's failure to produce the sign in sheets warranted the
preclusion of Capital's eyewitness because the sign in sheets, if produced, would establish or refute
the veracity of Patina's testimony.
3
3 of 7
[* 3]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:40 PM INDEX NO. 525109/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 477 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025
In reply, Capital contends that Plaintiff did not address its argument separating Patino' s
firsthand testimony from Capital's timekeeping records. Capital also argued that Plaintiffs three new
eyewitnesses are not credible and reemphasized its belief that it would be unfair to prevent it from
offering conflicting testimony.
The decision to grant leave to renew or reargue is at the sound discretion of the Court (see
Rodney v New York Pyrotechnic Prod. Co., 112 AD2d 410, 411 [2d Dept 1985] [internal citation
omitted]; Gold v Gold, 53 AD3d 485, 487 [2d Dept 2008]). A motion for leave to renew "shall be based
upon new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination or shall
demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination" (CPLR
2221 [e] (21). "On a motion to renew, a party must show new facts to supports its motion, as well as a
justifiable excuse for not initially placing such facts before the Court" (Lansing Research Corp. v
Sybron Corp., 142 AD2d 816,819 (3d Dept 1988] citing Foleyv Roche, 68 AD2d 558 (1st Dept 1979]).
Upon the Court's review of the merits of the movant's arguments, the motion for reargument is
essentially granted (see McNamara v Rockland Cnty. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n., Inc., 302 AD2d
435, 436 [2d Dept 2003]). A motion for leave to reargue is "not designed to provide an unsuccessful
party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or to present arguments
different from those originally presented" (McGill v Goldman, 261 AD2d 593, 594 (2d Dept 1999]
[internal citations omitted]).
Regarding Plaintiff's motion to renew his summary judgment motion (Mot. Seq. No. l 0),
Plaintiffs alleged new evidence is unavailing. First, since the so called "accident report" was
previously submitted and considered by the Court, it does not constitute "new facts." 1 Second, while
the ambulance report may constitute a new fact, Plaintiff failed to provide a justifiable excuse for not
including it with his initial motion. Even if the Court were to consider it, it would not change the
Court's determination since the report does not corroborate Plaintiff's claim that he was injured at the
jobsite. The ambulance picked Plaintiff up at his house the day following the accident. Details about
the accident contained in the ambulance record are merely a report of what Plaintiff related to medical
personnel. The Court now turns to the deposition testimonies of Plaintiff's co-workers, whom Plaintiff
was allegedly unable to previously identify. While the co-workers state that Plaintiff was at the jobsite,
their testimonies create additional issues of fact. None of them claim to have known Plaintiff
1 In its original motion, Plaintiff filed Workers' Compensation Board records but referred to them as an accident
report. Assuming arguendo that these records constituted "new facts," the Court finds this evidence minimally
persuasive since it was created well after the incident by an unknown author for insurance purposes and merely denotes
that an accident occurred with minimal details.
4
4 of 7
[* 4]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:40 PM INDEX NO. 525109/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 477 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025
personally. In fact, they identified Plaintiff based on their memory of the day of the alleged accident
and Plaintiffs New York Learner's Permit ID photo. Defendants maintain that Plaintiff was not present
when the alleged accident occurred. Patino testified that Plaintiff was not at the morning safety meeting
and Capital's policy dictates that employees cannot work on days that they are late. In addition, there
was no actual accident report filed documenting an accident. Credibility questions surrounding
Plaintiffs new eyewitnesses combined with Defendant's competing version of events create issues of
fact. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion to renew is granted with regards to the new eyewitness testimony,
and upon renewal, the Court adheres to its original decision.
With respect to Capital's motion to reargue this Court's preclusion order (Mot. Seq. No. 18),
the Court notes that Patina's testimony alone is not sufficient to establish that Plaintiff was not present
at the time of the accident. Patino was not at the jobsite when the alleged accident occurred. Rather,
Patina's testimony is limited to the morning safety meeting. His testimony is intimately related to the
sign-in sheets from that meeting which were not produced, a· failure that led to this court's preclusion
order. Therefore, it must also be precluded. Accordingly, Capital's motion to reargue the court's
decision dated March 13, 2025, is granted and upon reargument the Court adheres to its original
decision.
In support of his motion for a trial preference (Mot. Seq. No. 17), Plaintiff stresses that this
case was poised for trial before the Note of Issue was vacated. According to Plaintiff, by failing to
abide by court orders, Capital necessitated the need for more discovery. Therefore, Plaintiff declares it
would be unjust to punish him with further delay. In opposition, Capital argues that Plaintiff was the
party who asked for the Note of Issue to be vacated and therefore, Plaintiff is responsible for the delay.
Moreover, Capital contends that Plaintiff failed to address any specific provision of CPLR 3403 which
would entitle him to a trial preference, such as being elderly or terminally ill. However, Plaintiff asserts
that a law clerk in a different part promised this case would be given special trial preference. The Court
reached out to verify this assertion but there was no written record or recollection of this alleged
promise. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for trial preference is denied.
Lastly, in support of its motion to vacate (Mot. Seq. No. 19), Capital notes that Plaintiff will
rely heavily on the eyewitness statements of Parades, Game, and Hessler at trial. Capital avers that it
has not had a chance to fully depose these eyewitnesses, nor obtain information as to the circumstances
in which they were identified. Capital also brings attention to the credibility issues raised by the fact
that the eyewitnesses were identified by Plaintiffs attorney several years after this action was
commenced. Moreover, Capital highlights that the witnesses did not know Plaintff before the accident
and they identified Plaintiff for this lawsuit based only on a photocopy of his New York State Learner's
5
5 of 7
[* 5]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:40 PM INDEX NO. 525109/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 477 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025
permit. Capital insists on the need for further deposition and its need to retrieve Plaintiffs attorneys'
records regarding the sudden identification of these witnesses, which Capital has no way to obtain
outside of discovery.
In opposition, Plaintiff states that the three witnesses at issue were known to Capital since 2023
and deposed in 2024, yet it never made any supplemental demands nor any other reference to these
witnesses until this motion, one day after the Note of Issue was filed. Plaintiff argues that Capital's
motion is a merely an unmeritorious attempt to delay trial. In reply, Capital argues that they were only
made aware of these witnesses in February 2024. Capital reemphasizes that the depositions were not
completed, quoting from Parades' deposition: "The deposition is open. We have not completed the
deposition" (Paredes tr. at 151, lines 20-22). Capital also quoted from Game's deposition: "Okay. So
Mr; Game, what we're going to do is leave your record open, since it's not completed, the nonparty
deposition is not completed for today" (Game tr. at 105 lines 19-22). Moreover, Capital argues since
it has moved to vacate the Note of Issue within 20 days after its service it need not demonstrate "good
cause" but only that the matter is not ready for trial, under 22 NYCRR 202.21 (e). Nonetheless, Capital
claims their need to finish depositions and obtain information regarding how the witnesses were
identified meets this "good cause standard."
"A statement in a certificate of readiness to the effect that all pretrial discovery has been
completed is a material fact, and where that statement is incorrect, the Note oflssue should be vacated"
(Cioffi v S.M Foods, Inc. , 178 AD3d 1003 [2d Dept 2019], citing Barrett v New York City Health &
Hosps. Corp., 150 AD3d 949, 951-952, 55 NYS3d 318 [2017]). "[T]o vacate [a] note of issue,
discovery requests must be 'legitimate and pending,' and 'not resolved or contrived'" (Jablonsky v
Nerlich, 189 AD3d 1561 [2d Dept 2020] citing Jrelandv GEICO Corp., 2 AD3d 917,918, 768 NYS2d
508 [2003], Tilden Fin. Corp. v Muffoletto, 161 AD2d 583, 583-584 [2d Dept 1990]).
Here, Capital is requesting more time to prepare this case for trial. Given the importance of
Plaintiffs eyewitnesses, their relatively recent introduction, and Defendant's unfinished depositions,
Defendant's request to complete discovery is legitimate. Not enough time has passed for Defendant to
have waived its right to discovery. However, this trial has already been delayed long enough, and
Defendant's discovery needs are limited. Therefore, the Note oflssue will not be vacated. Plaintiff is
directed to tum over all documents related to how he located his eyewitnesses within 20 days of the
entry of this decision. Defendant must complete the open depositions of eyewitnesses Paredes and
Game within 40 days ofreceiving these documents. 2
2 The deposition of Gunter Hassler was not held open.
6
6 of 7
[* 6]
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 08/06/2025 04:40 PM INDEX NO. 525109/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 477 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/06/2025
Accordingly, Capital's motion to vacate the Note oflssue and Certificate of Readiness (Mot.
Seq. No. 19) is granted.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to renew this Court's decision dated June 29, 2023 (Mot.
Seq. No. 10) is granted insofar as the new eyewitness testimonies are new evidence and upon renewal,
the court adheres to its original decision; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to seek trial preference (Mot. Seq. No. 17) is denied in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Capital's motion to reargue the Court's decision dated March 13, 2025 (Mot.
Seq. No. 18) is granted and upon reargument, the Court adheres to its original decision; and it is further
ORDERED that Capital's motion to vacate the Note oflssue and Certificate of Readiness (Mot.
Seq. No. 19) is denied; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is directed to tum over all documents related to how he located his
eyewitnesses within 20 days of the entry of this decision. Defendant must complete the open
depositions of eyewitnesses Paredes and Game within 40 days of receiving these documents.
All other issues not addressed herein are either without merit or moot.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
HON. INGRID J EPH, J.S.C.
Hon. Ingrid Jos
Supreme Court Ju
7
7 of 7
[* 7]