Congratulations to our partner, Marie Castronuovo, on winning summary judgment in two different cases for Pritchard Industries. 

The first case, Mamadou Camara v. Boston Properties and Pritchard Industries, was venued in NY County. It involved a slip and fall on a loading dock ramp at the building owned by Boston Properties where Pritchard was the janitorial service provider. The plaintiff alleged the ramp was wet and slippery, that the diamond-plated surface was worn, and that there should have been a handrail on both sides of the ramp instead of just one. 

The defendant, Boston Properties, moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, arguing that they had no notice about slippery conditions; the accident occurred on a rainy day and they had no duty to place mats or continuously mop the ramp. They also argued that the diamond-plated surface and single handrail were sufficient and Code-compliant. The defendant also moved for summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Pritchard, arguing that Pritchard’s contract required them to patrol the ramp and keep it clean. 

Marie moved for summary judgment, arguing that Pritchard owed no duty to the plaintiff and further, that their janitorial services contract only required daily sweeping of the ramp and mopping only when requested for a spill or transient condition. Marie also moved for dismissal of the co-defendant Boston Properties’s cross claim for contractual indemnification arguing that if the plaintiff’s allegations of an inherently dangerous condition was accepted, Pritchard could not be held liable as the accident did not occur as a result of their work. 

In an Order signed on June 6, 2022, Judge Paul Alpert denied the defendant Boston Properties motion in its entirety and granted Pritchard summary judgment on both the plaintiff’s Complaint and Boston Properties’s cross claim for contractual indemnification. 

The second case, Theresa Nuovo v. 100 Wall Realty v. Pritchard Industries, was venued in Westchester County, and also involved a slip and fall. The plaintiff fell on weather mats in the lobby of 100 Wall Street during an active rain event. The evidence revealed that the lobby mats were in place, but the plaintiff argued they were insufficient and improperly configured with a two-foot space between two mats that caused her to fall when she stepped off one mat to get to the other. The building owner moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, arguing that they were not required to cover every inch of flooring. The building also moved against Pritchard arguing that their contract required them to place the mats and keep the lobby clean and dry. 

Marie moved for summary judgment on Pritchard’s behalf, arguing that the configuration of the mats was dictated by the building and there had been no complaints at any time regarding how Pritchard laid the mats. Further, Pritchard argued that case law does not require complete coverage of the building’s floor, nor does it require defendant provide a constant remedy to tracked in rainwater. On June 14, 2022, in an Order signed by Judge Damaris Torrent, defendants were granted summary judgment.