Bateman v. The Permanent Mission of Chad to the United Nations in New York

Background

Charles G. Bateman, III brought claims against The Permanent Mission of Chad to the United Nations in New York concerning an accident at a construction site during renovation of a residence for Chad’s Ambassador to the United Nations. The claims alleged negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 and Section 23 of New York’s Industrial Code. Chad brought a third-party action against Hilt Construction and Management Corp. for contractual and common-law indemnification. Hilt also asserted a counterclaim against Chad.

After discovery, Chad and Hilt each moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Chad sought judgment dismissing Bateman’s claims and granting judgment on its indemnification claims against Hilt. Hilt sought judgment dismissing Bateman’s complaint and Chad’s third-party claims. Bateman separately moved for sanctions because Chad had not produced a witness for deposition despite multiple court orders and warnings.

Summary-Judgment Rulings

The court denied Chad’s motion for summary judgment. It found genuine factual disputes about whether Chad personnel supervised or controlled work at the site and about Chad’s knowledge of site conditions. Those disputes affected Bateman’s negligence claim and whether the one- or two-family-dwelling exemptions in Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 applied. The court also denied summary judgment on Chad’s contractual and common-law indemnification claims because unresolved factual issues included whether Hilt was negligent and whether Chad directed, supervised, or controlled the work.

The court denied Hilt’s motion for summary judgment. It rejected Hilt’s argument that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act barred Bateman’s action, stating that the renovation contract involved commercial activity. The court also rejected Hilt’s arguments concerning Bateman’s negligence and Labor Law claims for the same factual reasons discussed in connection with Chad’s motion. Hilt’s argument that Chad’s third-party complaint had become moot also failed because Bateman’s complaint was not dismissed. The court did not grant summary judgment on Chad’s breach-of-contract claim concerning insurance; whether Chad could recover under that provision was reserved for trial.

Sanctions Ruling

The court granted Bateman’s cross-motion for sanctions in part under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Chad had not produced a witness for deposition, even after discovery deadlines were extended, the issue was raised at conferences, Chad’s counsel identified a possible ten-day period for testimony, and the court warned about the consequences of continued noncompliance.

The court declined to strike Chad’s answer, enter default judgment, or impose the harshest requested sanction. Instead, it precluded Chad from offering a representative witness to testify on its behalf at trial. Chad was not barred from presenting other evidence that had been timely produced and was otherwise admissible. The court also stated that the jury would receive a missing-witness instruction allowing an adverse inference, although it deferred deciding the instruction’s precise wording. Finally, Chad—not its counsel—was required to pay Bateman’s reasonable expenses caused by the failure to attend the September 2019 deposition, if any. Bateman was directed to document those expenses within thirty days.

Other Disposition

The court denied the parties’ request for oral argument as unnecessary. It directed the parties to appear for a pretrial conference and requested that the clerk terminate the pending motions. The order did not resolve the underlying claims in favor of either side; the denied summary-judgment motions left the disputed issues for further proceedings.