noting that such claims attach to owners or general contractors when they have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition or actually exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work
How later courts described this case
- noting that such claims attach to owners or general contractors when they have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition or actually exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Sorto v SCI Funeral Servs. of N.Y., Inc.
2026 NY Slip Op 30671(U)
February 25, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 160601/2021
Judge: Lyle E. Frank
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.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1606012021.NEW_YORK.002.LBLX036_TO.html[03/09/2026 3:45:54 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 11:52 AM INDEX NO. 160601/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK PART 11M
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 160601/2021
SAUDY ADONAY ALBERTO SORTO,
MOTION DATE 09/22/2025
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 005
-v-
SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF NEW YORK, INC, SERVICE
CORPORATION INTERNATIONAL, NEW YORK FUNERAL DECISION + ORDER ON
CHAPELS, LLC D/B/A RIVERSIDE MEMORIAL CHAPEL, MOTION
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
NEW YORK FUNERAL CHAPELS, LLC D/B/A RIVERSIDE Third-Party
MEMORIAL CHAPEL Index No. 595072/2022
Plaintiff,
-against-
SKYLINE RESTORATION INC.
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
NEW YORK FUNERAL CHAPELS, LLC D/B/A RIVERSIDE Second Third-Party
MEMORIAL CHAPEL Index No. 595771/2022
Plaintiff,
-against-
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 143, 144, 145, 146,
147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167,
168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181
were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER .
Upon the foregoing documents, the motion is granted in part.
160601/2021 ALBERTO SORTO, SAUDY ADONAY vs. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF NEW Page 1 of 5
YORK, INC ET AL
Motion No. 005
1 of 5
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 11:52 AM INDEX NO. 160601/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2026
Background
This motion arises out of a Labor Law case involving a fall from a scaffold platform.
Plaintiff is a painter/mechanic, and on July 8, 2021, he was working on a construction site on
premises owned by SCI Funeral Services of New York, Inc. (“SCI” or “Owner”). It was
Plaintiff’s understanding that while he was working there, he was employed by Skyline
Restoration s/h/b, Inc. (“Skyline” or “Employer”). Skyline disputes this allegation and claims
that the subcontractor Magella Construction Corp. (“Magella”) is the true employer. On July 8th,
Plaintiff and his now-deceased coworker Roberto Rivas were cleaning an area of scaffold. He
tripped over several bricks that had been removed by workers or had fallen from the building.
Plaintiff claims that Mr. Rivas was supposed to place the bricks in a removal bag but that this
had not been done.
Relevant Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed this underlying proceeding in November of 2021. That January, Riverside
filed an answer with cross-claims. Riverside has filed a second third-party complaint asserting
claims against OneTeam, who has answered and in turn filed a third third-party complaint
against Magella. Magella has been properly served but has failed to answer or appear in this
action. The Workers Compensation Board has issued a determination stating that Skyline is the
Plaintiff’s employer. This determination was affirmed on appeal.
Standard of Review
Under CPLR § 3212, a party may move for summary judgment and the motion “shall be
granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action or defense shall be
established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in favor of
any party.” CPLR § 3212(b). Once the movant makes a showing of a prima facie entitlement to
160601/2021 ALBERTO SORTO, SAUDY ADONAY vs. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF NEW Page 2 of 5
YORK, INC ET AL
Motion No. 005
2 of 5
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 11:52 AM INDEX NO. 160601/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2026
judgment as a matter of law, the burden then shifts to the opponent to “produce evidentiary proof
in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a
trial of the action.” Stonehill Capital Mgt. LLC v. Bank of the W., 28 N.Y.3d 439, 448 [2016].
The facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, but conclusory
statements are insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Id.
Discussion
In this motion, OneTeam moves for summary judgment in their favor dismissing
Plaintiff’s Labor Law claims against them. They also seek to dismiss any and all cross-claims,
counterclaims, and third-party claims against them in this action, arguing that they did not
perform any work on the project and had not involvement in the supervision, direction or control
of Plaintiff’s work on the date of the incident. Finally, they seek a default judgment against
Magella. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Defendants and second third-party plaintiffs
Riverside and Skyline have submitted partial opposition to the motion, arguing that their claims
against OneTeam for indemnification, contribution, and breach of contract should not be
dismissed. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s claims asserted against OneTeam are
dismissed, OneTeam is granted default judgment on liability as against Magella Construction
Corp., and the motion is otherwise denied.
OneTeam Has Established Prima Facie Entitlement to Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff’s
Claims Against Them
The first issue before the Court is whether OneTeam has met its burden in establishing
prima facie entitlement to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against it. OneTeam argues that it
was not an owner, general contractor, nor statutory agent for the project, and that they did not
supervise, direct or control the injury-producing work. These allegations are supported by the
160601/2021 ALBERTO SORTO, SAUDY ADONAY vs. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF NEW Page 3 of 5
YORK, INC ET AL
Motion No. 005
3 of 5
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 11:52 AM INDEX NO. 160601/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2026
testimony of OneTeam’s employee Mr. Rojas. Because Plaintiff failed to dispute these
allegations or this motion, dismissal of Plaintiff’s Labor Law and common-law negligence
claims against OneTeam is proper. See, e.g., Cappabianca v. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc., 99 A.D.3d
139, 143 – 44 [1st Dept. 2012] (noting that such claims attach to owners or general contractors
when they have actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition or actually
exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work).
Dismissal of Riverside and Skyline’s Claims Against OneTeam Now Would Be Premature
OneTeam moves here to dismiss the claims that Riverside and Skyline have asserted
against it. OneTeam also moves for summary judgment on its cross-claims and counterclaims for
contribution and indemnification that are asserted against Skyline and Riverside. This portion of
the motion is opposed by Skyline and Riverside. They argue that the reason that OneTeam did no
work on the site was that they subcontracted their work to Magella, and therefore the contractual
indemnities between the parties applies. Because here there are issues of fact that go to Riverside
and Skyline’s liability for Plaintiff’s claims, and issues of fact that go to whether the
subcontracting of work to Magella negates indemnification, dismissal of these claims at this
stage would be premature. But because Magella has failed to answer or appear in this action, the
allegations made against it in the third third-party complaint are deemed true, and OneTeam is
entitled to a default judgement against Magella as to liability. Accordingly, it is hereby
ADJUDGED that the motion is granted in part; and it is further
ADJUDGED that plaintiff Saudy Adonay Alberto Sorto’s claims asserted against
OneTeam Restoration Inc. are dismissed; and it is further
160601/2021 ALBERTO SORTO, SAUDY ADONAY vs. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF NEW Page 4 of 5
YORK, INC ET AL
Motion No. 005
4 of 5
[* 4]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/26/2026 11:52 AM INDEX NO. 160601/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 185 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/25/2026
ADJUDGED that OneTeam Restoration Inc. is entitled to a default judgment on liability
as against defendant Magella Construction Corp., with damages to be determined as necessary
by an inquest upon resolution of this matter.
2/25/2026
DATE LYLE E. FRANK, 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
160601/2021 ALBERTO SORTO, SAUDY ADONAY vs. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF NEW Page 5 of 5
YORK, INC ET AL
Motion No. 005
5 of 5
[* 5]