At an IAS Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Westchester, at the Courthouse, 111 Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. Boulevard, White Plains, New York, on the _____ day of ______, 2025

Third-Party Plaintiff, -against- Upon reading correspondence, dated January 22, 2025, of David Zwerin, Esq. of Hill & Moin, LLP, attorneys for the Plaintiff, ANGEL PANJON (Motion Seq.

No. 6, NYSCEF Doc. No. 268), seeking the Court to vacate its Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant, DANBURY CONCRETE PUMPING, LLC, and permitting the Plaintiff to file Reply papers: Reply papers would not change the decision on the Motion.

Whereas Plaintiff did not meet his burden to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment, the burden did not shift to the Defendant and there was no need to consider Defendant’s Opposition or any Reply papers.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED, that Plaintiff’s Application is denied in its entirety.

54682/2021 02/03/2025 At an IASPart of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Westchester, at the Courthouse, 111 Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. Boulevard, White Plains, New York, on the 31st day ofJanuary 2025 PRESENT: Hon.

Among the evidence Danbury includes is a deposition transcript of the testimony of Dominick Fanelli, owner of DSF Concrete, and eyewitness to the occurrence.

Mr. Fanelli further opined that only the Danbury pump operatorcan control the flow of concrete to the hose.

Whereas Danbury included this transcript among its exhibits in this motion, Danbury has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment because of the questions of fact arising out of the Fanelli testimony.

54682/2021 02/03/2025 the opposition papers, but even if Danbury’s burden had been met, the conflicting opinions of the experts are sufficient to demonstrate that questions of fact exist requiring denial of the motion.

At an JAS Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Westchester, at the Courthouse, 111 Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. Boulevard, White Plains, New York, on the 31st_ day ofJanuary 2025 PRESENT: Hon.

Uponthe e-filed documents listed by NYSCEF document numbers 128-158, 261-262 and 266,the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (motion sequence 005) against LandmarkRealty Group, LLC., (“Landmark”) as to plaintiff's claims pursuant to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) is hereby granted in its entirety for the reasons set forth herein.

On this motion for summary judgment, plaintiff argues that Landmark, as the owner and general contractor, is liable under the Labor Lawforits failure to provide fall protection at the location whereplaintiff was working.

Landmark doesnot contest its involvement as owner/general contractor but argues that questions of fact exist as to whetherthe plaintiff was the sole proximate cause ofthe incident.

The mere fact that plaintiff testified he had experience doing this work does not absolve the owner/general contractorofliability for failing to providefall protection.

At an IAS Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Westchester, at the Courthouse, 111 Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. Boulevard, White Plains, New York, on the _____ day of ______, 2025

Third-Party Plaintiff, -against- Upon reading the Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, dated November 25, 2024, and the Affidavit or Affirmation of David Zwerin, Esq. of Hill & Moin, LLP, attorneys for the Plaintiff, ANGEL PANJON, together with the exhibits annexed hereto, submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant, DANBURY CONCRETE PUMPING, LLC, (Motion Sequence No. 6, NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 159-89) with the Affidavit or Affirmation in Opposition to the Motion, dated December 13, 2024, of Doreen J. Correia, Esq. of Correia, Conway & Stiefeld, attorneys for the Defendant, DANBURY CONCRETE PUMPING, LLC (NYSCEF Doc. No. 192):

Plaintiff is seeking to find Defendant Danbury liable as a matter of law on a claim of negligent pumping of the concrete involved in this incident.

However, that argument highlights the differences in opinion thereby demonstrating that questions of fact exist as to how this accident happened.

The Court is unable to assess credibility of the witnesses, including the experts, on motion papers alone.

At an IAS Part of the SupremeCourt of the State of NewYork, held in and for the County of Westchester, at the Courthouse, Jr. Boulevard, White Plains, NewYork, on Dr. Martin L. King, day of , 2025 the P RE S EN T: Hon.

documents listed by NYSCEFdocument numbers 89-103, 193-222 and Upon the e-filed 263, Danbury Concrete Pumping, LLC's ("Danbury") motion for summary judgment (motion sequence 003) against plaintiff is denied in its entirety.

Onthis motion for summary judgment, defendant Danbury seeks dismissal of all claims either under the Labor Lawor common and cross-claims it arguing they have no liability against theories.

Among the evidence Danbury includes law negligence is a deposition transcript owner of DSFConcrete, and eyewitness to the occurrence.

the opposition papers, but even if Danbury's burden had been met, the conflicting opinions of the experts are sufficient to demonstrate that questions of fact exist requiring denial of the motion.

At an IAS Part of the SupremeCourt of the State of NewYork, held in and for the County of Westchester, at the Courthouse, Jr. Boulevard, White Plains, NewYork, on Dr. Martin L. King, day of , 2025 the P RE S EN T: Hon.

argues that Landmark, as the owner and its failure to provide fall protection at the its involvement as owner/general contractor but argues that questions of fact exist as to whether the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the incident.

The mere fact available experience doing this work does not absolve the owner/general to demonstrate that plaintiff knew that safety devices were that plaintiff testified he had contractor of liability for failing to provide fall protection.

Plaintiff established his entitlement to summary judgment and the burden then shifted to Landmark to show that of such as sole proximate cause or are material questions there fact but Landmark has not made such a showing herein.

fails to rebut multiple Industrial recalcitrant worker, Landmark as a result of As a result, is liable to plaintiff motion for summaryjudgment is granted in its entirety, plaintiff's under Labor Law §240(1) and 241(6) as a matter of law.

At an IAS Part of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Westchester, at the Courthouse, 111 Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. Boulevard, White Plains, New York, on the _____ day of ______, 2025

Third-Party Plaintiff, -against- Upon reading correspondence, dated January 22, 2025, of David Zwerin, Esq. of Hill & Moin, LLP, attorneys for the Plaintiff, ANGEL PANJON (Motion Seq.

No. 6, NYSCEF Doc. No. 268), seeking the Court to vacate its Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendant, DANBURY CONCRETE PUMPING, LLC, and permitting the Plaintiff to file Reply papers: Reply papers would not change the decision on the Motion.

Whereas Plaintiff did not meet his burden to demonstrate entitlement to summary judgment, the burden did not shift to the Defendant and there was no need to consider Defendant’s Opposition or any Reply papers.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED, that Plaintiff’s Application is denied in its entirety.

The 20th day of December, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., at an IAS Part for the County of Westchester at the Courthouse located at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Affirmation of Doreen J. Correia dated November 21, 2024, with exhibits, the pleadings and proceedings and the case law and authority set forth therein.

Dismissing all crossclaims against Defendant, DANBURY CONCRETE PUMPING, INC.; and for such other and further relief as to the Court may appear just and proper.

Required seven days before the return date pursuant to CPLR 2214(b).

NOBILE, MAGARIAN & DISALVO, LLP Attorneys for Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff

ENTERPRISES, LLC., STRELACORE, INC. d/b/a LANDMARK CONSTRUCTION, DAKOTA SUPPLY CORP., and DANBURY

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the affirmation of David S. Zwerin, Esq. dated the 25th day of November, 2024 , and upon all the exhibits, pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, the undersigned will move before this Court at an IAS Part at the Courthouse located at 111 Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. Boulevard, White Plains, New York on the 20th day of December, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard:

For an order pursuant to Section 3212 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant, LANDMARK REALTY GROUP, LLC., finding that LANDMARK REALTY GROUP, LLC, violated Labor Law §240(1) and 241(6) as a matter of law and dismissing all affirmative defenses as to liability against defendant, LANDMARK REALTY GROUP, LLC., and for an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to Section 2214(b) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, all answering papers, if any, shall be served at least seven (7) days before the return date of this motion.

NOBILE, MAGARIAN & DISALVO, LLP Attorneys for Defendants 111 Kraft Avenue Bronxville, New York 10708 LEWIS JOHS AVALLONE AVILES LLP Attorneys for Defendant 1377 Motor Parkway Suite 400 Islandia, New York 11749