Suazo v. Ocean Network Express, Inc.

Background

Ronel Bonifacio Suazo and Edwin Arevalo Ramos brought a negligence action against Ocean Network Express (North America), Inc., Danesi U.S.A., Inc., Genesis Global Solutions Corp., and Savema S.P.A. They also asserted claims under sections 200, 240, and 241(6) of the New York Labor Law. Danesi brought a third-party complaint against Savema, and Suazo and Ramos later asserted cross-claims against Savema.

Savema sold fourteen marble slabs that were shipped from Italy to New York and delivered to Colonna Marble, Inc. The slabs were arranged in two bundles and supported by a wooden rack system. Each slab weighed about 900 pounds. On July 3, 2019, Suazo and Ramos, who worked for Colonna Marble, were unloading the slabs. After Suazo removed two of the three wooden support beams while the workers held the bundle, the slabs became unstable and fell on Suazo and partly on Ramos. Both were severely injured.

Earlier Summary-Judgment Ruling

Savema previously moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in part on March 2, 2023. The court granted summary judgment on the New York Labor Law sections 200, 240, and 241(6) claims. It denied summary judgment on the common-law negligence claim because there was a genuine factual dispute about whether Savema’s method of packaging the slabs contributed to the injuries.

The earlier ruling also declined to consider a failure-to-warn claim because Suazo and Ramos raised it for the first time in opposition to summary judgment. The court separately denied Savema’s request to exclude the rebuttal report of Joseph McHugh, finding that McHugh was qualified to testify as an expert and that his report did not improperly present new legal issues.

Reconsideration Motion

Savema moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and asked the court to dismiss the remaining common-law negligence claim. A motion for reconsideration is subject to a strict standard. It generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. It cannot be used simply to relitigate prior arguments or obtain another hearing on the merits.

Savema did not identify a change in controlling law or new evidence. It argued instead that no material facts supported an inference that its packaging caused the injuries, that Colonna Marble’s alteration of the wooden supports was the only possible cause, and that the evidence did not permit competing inferences.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

The court rejected those arguments. Suazo and Ramos alleged that Savema’s packaging, loading, or securing of the slabs, including the failure to provide proper access, caused their injuries. Savema presented evidence that its packaging followed industry practices, but Suazo and Ramos disputed that evidence and argued that compliance with industry practices would not automatically eliminate negligence liability. McHugh’s report also specifically stated that the packaging did not adequately warn or instruct workers how to remove the slabs safely.

The court held that the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact. Whether Savema’s packaging contributed to the injuries and what inferences should be drawn from the facts were matters for a jury, not for the judge to resolve on summary judgment. The court therefore found no clear error or manifest injustice in its earlier refusal to grant summary judgment on the negligence claim.

Savema also asked the court to reconsider its earlier refusal to exclude McHugh’s report. The court declined to consider that argument because Savema raised it for the first time in its reply brief. The court added that, even on the merits, the earlier decision had not barred a negligence theory based on failure to warn; it had only declined to consider a new failure-to-warn claim raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment.

Disposition

The court denied Savema’s motion for reconsideration. The common-law negligence claim therefore remained unresolved after this order, while the earlier grant of summary judgment on the New York Labor Law sections 200, 240, and 241(6) claims remained in place. The court also directed the parties to appear by telephone for a status conference and directed the clerk to terminate the reconsideration motion.