United States District Court, E.D. New York
VINCENT CATANZARO, Plaintiff.
NORTHEAST REMSCO CONSTRUCTION, INC., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, District Judge.
Plaintiff Vincent Catanzaro brings this action against defendant Northeast Remsco Construction, Inc. ("Northeast Remsco"), alleging negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 30104 et seq, negligence under the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 905(b) & 933, unseaworthiness, and maintenance and cure. ( See Compl. (Doc. No. 1).) Presently before the Court are Catanzaro and Northeast Remsco's cross motions for partial summary judgment on Catanzaro's status as a "seaman" and on his unseaworthiness claim. ( See Doc. Nos. 20, 21.) For the reasons that follow, both motions are denied.
Northeast Remsco contracted with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA") to strengthen and perform repairs to the trestle and bridge system that allows the subway to travel over Jamaica Bay to Far Rockaway, Queens. The project consisted of repairs to the beams underneath the bridges, removal of old, soft patches of concrete, installation of reinforcing steel bars, and application of new concrete. The project began in March 2009 and was estimated to be completed sometime in 2011. Catanzaro was hired by Northeast Remsco in March 2009 to work on the MTA project.
Catanzaro was assigned to work with Santiago Lamas and was tasked with transporting construction materials to the work areas for use in the project as well as carrying debris away from the work areas for disposal. The materials - which included plywood, reinforcing steel bars, and water, but consisted mostly of concrete sacks weighing approximately 2500 pounds - were packaged on wooden pallets and delivered to Ebb-Tide Marina by the supplier. Once there, the materials were loaded onto a materials transport barge by crane. Lamas operated the crane, which had a fork attachment that fit into the wooden pallets. Catanzaro would slide the crane's fork attachment into the pallet and Lamas would use the crane to lift the materials onto the transport barge. Once the materials were on the transport barge, Catanzaro would remove the fork attachment from the pallet.
After all the materials were loaded onto the barge, Lamas and Catanzaro would secure the barge to a tug boat. Lamas would operate the tug boat, and together they would transport the materials to the worksite, which consisted of several barges spudded down near the bridges. Upon arriving at the worksite, Catanzaro and Lamas would unload the barge using the same process; Catanzaro would slide the crane's fork attachment into the pallets and Lamas would use the crane to remove the materials from the barge and place them onto other barges present at the worksite. Catanzaro and Lamas would then load debris from the worksite onto the barge and return to Ebb-Tide Marina. Catanzaro spent at least five to six hours each day on the tug boat and barge during these material delivery trips.
In addition to his loading duties, Catanzaro would secure the barge to the pier before the loading process began and would untie the barge from the pier and secure it to the tug after loading was completed. Once at the worksite, he would secure the transport barge to the other barges at the worksite. Catanzaro would also assist Lamas in using the tug boat to move around the other barges at the worksite, a process that took approximately three hours each day. Furthermore, in a certification prepared after Northeast Remsco served their motion for summary judgment, Catanzaro also claims that he routinely acted as a lookout once the barge and tug were moving between the worksite and the pier and advised Lamas of hazards to the boat's navigation. Catanzaro further claims that he would give Lamas navigational directions on certain days when Lamas's field of view was obstructed by certain cargo.
On October 7, 2010, while attempting to remove the crane's fork attachment from a pallet following the loading of a sack of concrete onto the transport barge, Catanzaro was injured. According to Catanzaro, the pallets used with the materials were often weak and in poor condition, and would frequently crack under the weight of the concrete. Catanzaro states that on several occasions he complained about the state of the pallets to Lamas and to the general foreman, Bill Tolan, but that the problem was never addressed. On the day of his injury, Catanzaro claims that the pallet was collapsing under the weight of the concrete, which in turn made it difficult to remove the fork. As he was straining to remove the fork, his right knee suddenly buckled.
Northeast Remsco disputes this account. According to Northeast Remsco, the pallets used in the project were fully capable of supporting the weight of the concrete sacks and suitable for use during the project. Northeast Remsco contends that neither its safety department nor the project superintendant, Jerome Lemanowicz, ever received any complaints regarding the pallets, and that Tolan never told Lemanowicz that the pallets needed to be replaced or posed a risk of injury. Furthermore, Northeast Remsco claims that Catanzaro told neither Lemanowicz nor Tolan that a defective pallet was the cause of his injury immediately following the incident. Northeast Remsco argues instead that effort was required to remove the forks from the pallets regardless of the condition of the pallets simply because of the movement of the barges on the water.
On April 5, 2013, both parties moved for summary judgment on the issue of Catanzaro's status as a seaman and on Catanzaro's unseaworthiness claim. ( See Doc. Nos. 20, 21.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A genuine issue of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
In deciding a summary judgment motion, a district court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See id. at 249 (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)); Castle Rock Entm't, Inc. v. Carol Publ'g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 137 (2d Cir. 1998). The court must not "weigh the evidence but is instead required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party, and to eschew credibility assessments." Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford, 361 F.3d 113, 122 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Weyant v. Okst, 101 F.3d 845, 854 (2d Cir. 1996)). Any evidence in the record of any material fact from which an inference could be drawn in favor of the non-moving party precludes summary judgment. See Castle Rock Entm't, 150 F.3d at 137.
Once the movant has demonstrated that no genuine issue of material fact exists, then "the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)) (emphasis in original). However, there must exist more than mere "metaphysical doubt as to the material facts" to defeat a summary judgment motion. Id. at 586. Instead, the non-moving party must present "concrete evidence from which a reasonable juror could return a verdict in his favor." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Only disputes over material facts "that ...