Corrales-Patino v. Procida Construction Corp.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-05579
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Corrales-Patino v. Procida Construction Corp., Judge Ramos denied reconsideration because disputed evidence remained about how high Corrales fell.
The ruling affected Marco Antonio Corrales-Patino’s request to revisit the denial of partial summary judgment on his New York Labor Law § 240(1) claim. It also denied the defendants’ request for sanctions.
What happened
Corrales-Patino v. Procida Construction Corp. concerns Marco Antonio Corrales-Patino’s request to revisit the court’s earlier denial of his partial summary-judgment motion under New York Labor Law § 240(1). Corrales was injured after falling from a flatbed truck at a construction project, but the evidence differed about whether he stood on unstable materials up to 12 feet high or on a lower, stable surface.
Corrales argued that the evidence did not create a real factual dispute and that the court had made a clear error. The court rejected that argument, finding that his incident report describing running out of space and slipping conflicted with his later testimony that he fell from materials up to 12 feet above the ground. The court also noted that a fall from about four feet and two and a half inches would not trigger Section 240(1) under the cited law.
Judge Ramos denied Corrales’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate it. The court also denied the defendants’ request for sanctions.
The detailed version
- Corrales-Patino v. Procida Construction Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-05579
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 11, 2022
Background
Marco Antonio Corrales-Patino was injured on January 16, 2018, while working on a construction project in Manhattan. He was unloading materials from a flatbed truck when he fell to the ground. The court had previously denied Corrales’s partial motion for summary judgment on his claim under New York Labor Law § 240(1), which concerns certain elevation-related risks.
In the earlier ruling, the court found a material issue of fact—a factual dispute that could affect the outcome—about the height and surface from which Corrales fell. Corrales testified that he was as much as 12 feet above the ground and was standing on unstable materials. Evidence presented by Spring Scaffolding LLC and the defendants indicated that he may have been standing on the truck bed or a gate approximately four feet and two and a half inches above the ground.
Motion for Reconsideration
Corrales asked the court to reconsider the portion of the earlier ruling denying summary judgment on his Section 240(1) claim. Although he cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the court explained that Rule 59(e) applies to changing or amending a judgment after a trial, and no trial had occurred. The court assumed that Corrales intended to rely on Rule 60(b), which governs reconsideration of a court order. The court found the motion timely under Local Civil Rule 6.3 because Corrales filed it nine days after the earlier order.
Reconsideration is available only under a strict standard, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues or present a second version of the case.
Court’s Analysis
Corrales argued that there was no genuine dispute that he had been standing on unstable materials in the truck. He contended that his incident report, which stated that he ran out of room in the truck and slipped, did not directly contradict his later testimony. He did not offer new evidence and did not identify an intervening change in controlling law.
The court found that Corrales’s accounts were inconsistent, not merely different in detail. The incident report did not mention standing on top of materials, while his later deposition testimony described falling from materials up to 12 feet high. Because those accounts differed, the factual dispute remained. The court also stated that even if the incident report were not inconsistent with his testimony, a fall from a height of about four feet and two and a half inches would not present the type of elevation-related risk covered by Section 240(1), based on the cited precedent.
The court noted that Corrales had a reasonable basis for seeking reconsideration, so it denied the defendants’ request for sanctions.
Disposition
The court denied Corrales’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, identified as Doc. 135. The defendants’ request for sanctions was also denied.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.