Rivera v. Lettire Construction Corp.
- Subramanian
- 1:21-cv-06006
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rivera v. Lettire Construction, Judge Subramanian clarified that the summary-judgment order remained unchanged regarding related safety requirements.
Roman de Gabriel Rivera and the defendants, including Lettire Construction Corp., in the ongoing dispute over the scope of the prior summary-judgment order concerning New York construction-safety requirements.
What happened
Rivera v. Lettire Construction Corp. concerned the meaning of an earlier order on the parties’ summary-judgment motions under New York construction-safety regulations.
The court explained that Rivera had not shown a factual dispute about whether the safety railing alone violated one regulation subsection. But that subsection was connected to additional requirements, including one concerning the hazardous opening, and the defendants had not addressed those requirements in their summary-judgment briefing.
Judge Subramanian confirmed that the written order was correct as written and that summary judgment was denied as to the related requirements considered together. He also said the defendants’ request for clarification was permitted and reminded the parties to file similar requests as letter-motions.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Lettire Construction Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-06006
- Subramanian
- Jan. 8, 2024
Background
The court received a letter from the defendants seeking clarification of the written summary-judgment order and a response from Rivera. The court stated that the written order matched the reasons given at the hearing on the summary-judgment motions.
Issue and analysis
The court explained that Rivera had not produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact—a dispute that could affect the outcome—about whether the defendants violated 12 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations section 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) standing alone. Rivera had not offered evidence that the safety railing failed to comply with that subsection. Instead, he argued that the circumstances required a covering under the subsection. The court found no support for that argument in the subsection’s language, so summary judgment on subsection (i) alone was proper.
The court clarified, however, that subsection (i) did not operate by itself. When it applies, additional requirements also apply, including requirements in section 23-1.7(b)(1)(iii), which refers back to the hazardous opening addressed in subsection (i). Because the defendants’ summary-judgment briefing did not address those related requirements, the court allowed them to address them in their motion in limine. The court therefore explained that its written order denied summary judgment as to the related provisions considered together, rather than as to subsection (i) standing alone.
Ruling
Judge Arun Subramanian confirmed that the written summary-judgment order was correct as written. He rejected Rivera’s argument that the defendants were procedurally barred from seeking clarification, explaining that federal courts generally recognize clarification requests and that this request sought to explain an ambiguity rather than alter or amend a judgment. The opinion does not state a separate grant or denial of the clarification request; it confirms the order’s meaning. The court reminded the parties that, under its Individual Practices, requests of this type should be filed as letter-motions rather than letters.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.