Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
EXHIBIT G
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--____________--_________-------.....--------_______---_............x
OSCAR A. SOSA, Index No.: 157001/2019
Plaintiff,
AFFIDAVIT OF
-against- PETER CHEN
85 TENTH AVENUE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.,
Defendant.
______________________..___....------____.._____---______.._______Ç
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER )
PETER CHEN, M.S.M.E., MBA, P.E., CFEI being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am currently employed as a Mechanical Engineer for ARCCA, Inc.
in Penns Park, Pennsylvania. I am a Professional Engineer, duly licensed in the states
of New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. I earned my Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering from Georgia
Institute of Technology in 1993. I subsequently earned my Master of Science in
Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1995. I also earned
a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Hartford in 2003.
"1"
A true and accurate copy of my curriculum vitae is annexed hereto as Exhibit
which sets forth my experience and qualifications.
2. I was retained on behalf of defendant 85 TENTH AVENUE
ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. ("85 Tenth"), to review the case information, research
applicable codes/regulations, as well as visit and inspect the loading dock that was
involved in Plaintiff's accident at 85 Tenth Avenue, New York, New York ("the
Premise"), on June 10, 2019.
3. It was reported that on June 10, 2019, at approximately 8:30 a.m.,
Oscar Sosa ("Plaintiff"), sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on the loading
dock at the Premise.
4. I personally reviewed certain discovery provided to me, including
the Summons and Complaint, Plaintiff's Verified Bill of Particulars, the Guardian
Security Report, a video depicting Plaintiff's accident, and photographs exchanged by
Plaintiff. Additionally, I conducted engineering research in order to determine the
history of the building, as well as assess all applicable codes.
(N2172645.1
}
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
5. Figure 1, attached here, shows Plaintiff on the ground after
attempting to move a large pallet of grocery and food type materials. It further depicts
a dock plate available to the right of Plaintiff on the cinderblock wall past a dolly.
Figure 2, attached here, is a close up of Plaintiffs photo which revealed that Plaintiff
was not working/walking in an area of water or wet flooring.
6. On November 11, 2021, I reported to the Premise in order to conduct
a site inspection. I personally observed the subject dock, took color
loading
photographs, made all pertinent measurements and tested the slip resistance of the
floor of the loading dock under both wet and dry conditions (Pictures #4-10, attached
hereto).
7. Based upon the site inspection and testing, engineering research,
engineering analysis, code review, and lack of prior accidents, the loading dock at the
premises at 85 Tenth was reasonably safe for use at the time of the incident.
10th
8. 85 Avenue, New York, NY is located just east of the Hudson
16th 10th
River between W Street on the north side (one-way east), Avenue on the east
15th 11th
side (one-way north), W Street on the south side (one-way west), and
Avenue/Route 9A (major divided roadway/highway north and south). The loading
dock entrance was located on the west end of the south side of the building (Picture
#4).
9. The loading dock consists of two loading bays sharing a common
dock level (Figure 5). According to the photographs provided to me (Figures #1-3),
plaintiff's incident occurred on the we.st bay as opposed to the east bay. Further, the
entire floor of the loading dock was equipped with a metal diamond plate covering. At
the time of my inspection arrival, the flooring of the docks and bay had been cleaned
with a water hose, and there was a water hose reel located on the wall within the west
bay.
10. Additionally, within the west bay, on the west wall, was the same
metal dock plate board leaning up against the wall (Figure 1). Above the dock plate,
there were no HVAC or mechanical pipes or systems that would result in a leak upon
the dock plate (Figure 6).
"diamonds"
11. The diamond plate flooring consisted of anti-skid raised
that were approximately ¾ inch in length, ¼ inch max in width, and 1/16 to 1/8 inch
in height (Figure 10). The diamonds were arranged in 45-degree crisscross pattern
spaced with coverage of less than an inch square (tight pattern).
12. I measured the slip resistance of the incident flooring using a
calibrated Mark III tribometer, serial No. 42 (Figure 8). The Mark III tribometer was
calibrated per ASTM F2508-13 Standard Practice for Validation, Calibration, and
Certification of Walkway Tribometers Using Reference Tiles and the slip resistance
of the incident flooring was measured both when wet and dry. Calibration determined
(N2172545.1
}
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
that the Mark III, Serial No. 42, tribometer had a resistance threshold value of
slip
0.43. the 0.43 slip resistance value reflects the margin of given the
safety dichotomy
between the reference tiles distinguishing between a and condition. The
slip non-slip
Mark III, Serial No. 42, was set up to use a flat grooved Neolite testfoot to determine
slip resistance in accordance with standard protocol.
testing
13. Based on calibrated engineering testing, the cause of the incident
was not the slip resistance of the flooring. The dock was resistant
loading flooring slip
when tested under both wet and dry conditions, and was comprised of metal with a
dense raised diamond plate pattern. The slip resistance was measured to be 0.69 and
0.59 (average in four ordinate directions) dry and wet, with a standard
respectively
deviation of 0.01.This was verified empirically with ordinary footwear (Figure 9).
14. Further, the loading dock at the Premise did not violate any
applicable codes.
15. Based on codes research and my site inspection, the loading dock
was largely subject to the 1968 NYC Building Codes for construction and
maintenance. There was no evidence of any kind of building code violation for the
loading dock or any kind of maintenance issue that would have resulted in the incident.
16. Pursuant to this code, the loading dock was not subject to any
specific construction codes as itwas not a means of egress, otherwise considered a
required component. Instead, all that was required was the loading area be designed
for the structural loads of trucks/shipping vehicles, the materials being loaded or
unloaded, and any devices being used for loading and unloading. There were no
handrail/ guard rail requirements for the edge of the loading dock level as the loading
dock was not a part of any stairs or ramps
17. Under the 1968 NYC Code, there was no requirement for slip
resistantflooring for the incident area at the Premise.
18. Plaintiff's Verified Bill of Particulars alleges 85 Tenth violated
various provisions of Title 27 of the NYC Administrative 27-
Codes; specifically, § §
375, 27-292, 501 and 27-232. Title 27 of the NYC Administrative Codes was and is
the 1968 NYC Building Code.
19. Section 27-232 of the Building Code of the City of New York is the
definitions section of the NYC Building Code and does not promulgate any kind of
standards upon the loading dock area. Therefore, there can be no vio.lation pursuant to
this Section.
20. Section 27-375 of the 1968 NYC Building Code provides
stair"
requirements for interior stairs. According to the code, an "interior was a
required stairwithin a building leading to an Exit. However, this code is not applicable
as the loading dock was not a part of interior stairs as defined by the code, as it was
(N2172645.1
}
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
not a required element, and was not a part of any kind of means of egress for the
building to a required exit.
21. Section §27-929 of the NYC Building Code deals with Fire
Department Access, and is inapplicable because the loading dock area was not
considered a part of the fire department access.
22. Lastly, Plaintiff alleges a violation of §501 of the Building Code of
the City of New York; however, no such code exists. The code believed to be alleged
here would be the NYC Fire Code §501, which deals with fire operations features of
a building to ensure safe and effective firefighting operations. Based on codes research
and my site inspection, the loading dock area was not a part of a means of egress or
means of escape for the building and, therefore, was not subject to he 2014 NYC Fire
Codes as with regards to means of egress flooring. That being said, the flooring would
meet the 2014 NYC Fire Codes as the flooring was slip resistant when both wet and
dry.
23. Based upon engineering analysis, the cause of the incident was
operator error on behalf of the Plaintiff. From the photographs provided to me (Figured
1-3), at the time of his accident, Plaintiff was attempting to unload a pallet from his
truck onto the loading dock utilizing a pallet jack. However, based on the photographs,
Plaintiff did not raise the pallet jack high enough to clear the bottom of the pallet from
the edge of the truck, which was necessary to overcome the drag force created, given
the height differential between Plaintiff's truck and the slightly lower level of the
loading dock.
24. From the photographs provided, itappears Plaintiff was attempting
to unload a standard pallet. A standard pallet is approximately 48-inch by 40-inches
and weighs approximately 37 pounds.
25. Further, based on the photographs provided, the pallet Plaintiff was
unloading from the truck was stacked to a reference height of approximately six feet
(Figure 7). Minus the pallet thickness and the relative difference between the truck and
the loading dock, the height of the stacked materials on the pallet was conservatively
around five feet. As such, pursuant to the Standard Pallet Sizes References Guide from
Greenway Products & Services, Inc., the usage rank was considered to be a 4 for "Dry
goods, Dairy, Produce". Therefore, the estimated weight of the pallet would be 833 to
995 pounds.
26. Given the size of the load and height differential between the truck
and loading dock, the manual pallet jack was not raised high enough to clear the
bottom of the pallet from the edge of the truck when transitioning to the slightly lower
"grounded"
level. Upon the pallet becoming and contacting the edge of the truck, the
horizontal pull load of the pallet jack will greatly rise from the normal rolling
resistance of the pallet jack to essentially mere sliding friction of the wooden pallet on
the diamond plated metal edge of the truck.
{ N2172645.
1J
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
27. Based on known rolling resistance values of wheels and steel plate,
the estimated pallet jack horizontal pull force would range depending on wheel
composition (hard rubber or polyurethane). If hard rubber, the pull force would range
from 252 to 303 pounds and therefore, more likely than not, the wheels of the pallet
jack were not hard rubber. More likely than not, the palletjack wheels were composed
of polyurethane, which would result in a horizontal pull force ranging from 25 to 57
pounds.
28. However, based on known wood and steel friction values, the
horizontal pull force of the pallet jack will greatly increase to a range of 333 to 646
pounds. Even if we assume a 50% reduction in horizontal forces due to a split of
vertical forces between the pallet jack wheels and the pallet jack contacting the edge
of the truck, the horizontal pull force would stillrange from approximately 167 to 323
pounds.
29. Even if we were to assume Plaintiff could translate allof his weight
into a horizontal pull force, with a slip resistance value measured at 0.59 wet and 0.69
dry, the plaintiff would have to pull or weigh an equivalent of 241 to 547 pounds to
overcome the friction created by the pallet to the truck, a conservative 50%
assuming
reduction in horizontal force.
30. From the NIOSH lifting index, under the best ideal body lifting
position, the recommended weight limit (RWL) for a two-handed liftis 51 pounds.
Attempting to pull even the conservative estimate of 16.7 to 323 pounds was far beyond
known safety standards for weightlifting in the workplace.
31. To overcome the huge drag force created when the pallet wheel
caught on the edge of the truck, the pallet forks and pallet needed to be raised higher
to account for the height differential between the truck and loading dock. Based on the
engineering analysis, upon encountering the large horizontal force, the operator should
have either raised the pallet to the appropriate height, or stopped and begun
unpackaging and unloading the pallet (from the top down). The pallet could be
repacked and reloaded once the pallet could be safely moved to the loading dock level.
32. Based on the photographs, the plaintiff was tasked at a minimum to
perform inside delivery. Inside delivery typically means that the goods being delivered
are dropped off inside of the residence or business. For inside delivery, the shipper or
deliverer such as the plaintiff was entirely responsible for safely delivering the goods.
That safety included the deliverer's own safety.
33. Based on the materials reviewed, plaintiff was expected to perform
for the delivery and there was no expectation that anyone from the premises would be
present to assist, manage, or control the delivery. As such, the plaintiff was fully
responsible for making the delivery in a safe manner not only for himself, but for the
property and the goods being delivered.
(N2172645.1
}
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
34. Based on research of the NYC DOB database, there has never been a
complaint or violation about the loading dock since itsemergence in I995.
35. Based on the site inspection and testing, engineering research,
engineering analysis, code review, and lack of history of any kind of issue, I can conclude
within a degree of engineering certainty that the loading dock of the premises was
reasonably safe for use at the time of the incident when used in the manner in which the
loading dock was designed. The loading dock was designed to be slip resistant when both
wet and dry, and would be reasonably safe for pulling of reasonable amounts of load in
the range of up to approximately 50 pounds depending on t ight of the person pulling.
P ER CHEN
M.S.M.E., M.B.A., P.E. CFEI
Sworn to before me this
ay of July 2022
DAE GON KIM
Notary Public, State of New York
Ucense Number: 01Kl6392677
Expiration Date: 08/19/2023
Qudified in Westchssier County
{N2172645.I
}
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
ARCCA, INCORPORATED
2288 SECOND STREET PIKE
P.O. BOX 78
PENNS PARK, PA 18943
PHONE 215-598-9750 FAX 215-598-9751
www. arc c a. c om
June XX, 2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
London Fischer LLP
59 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038
Re: Oscar A. Sosa vs. 85 Tenth Avenue Associates, L.L.C.
Supreme Court of New York
County of New York
Index No.: 157001/2019
ARCCA File No.: 4729-017
Date of Loss: June 10, 2019
Dear Mr. Carro:
ARCCA is pleased to submit a report on the above matter. This report is based on a site inspection,
written material review, engineering research and analysis, and the background, education, and
experience of Mr. Peter Chen, see CV attached as Attachment A. ARCCA reserves the right to
supplement or revise this report if additional information becomes available.
BACKGROUND:
On June 10, 2019, Mr. Oscar Sosa allegedly slipped on a loading dock located at 85 10th Avenue,
New York, NY.
WRITTEN MATERIAL REVIEW:
ARCCA reviewed the following written materials:
• Summons and Complaint, dated July 15, 2019.
• Verified Bill of Particulars, dated December 12, 2019.
• Guardian Security Report, dated June 10, 2019.
• Photos
Verified Bill of Particulars provided the following information:
• Incident occurred on June 10, 2019 at approximately 8:30 a.m. (para. 2).
• Incident location was on a loading dock located at 85 10th Avenue, New York, NY (para.
4).
• VBP alleges without explanation or substantiation violations of 27-375, 27-292, 501, 27-
232 of the Building Code of the City of New York.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 2
Guardian Security Report provided the following information:
Photos provided the following information:
• Photo from Plaintiff was of Plaintiff on ground (see Figure 1). Plaintiff was attempting to
move a large pallet of grocery and food type materials. A dock plate was available to the
right of the plaintiff on the cinderblock wall past a dolly. The pallet jack was not raised
high enough, and the bottom of the pallet was stuck at the rear edge of the truck.
Figure 1: Plaintiff’s Photo
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 3
• Close up of Plaintiff’s photo revealed that the plaintiff was not walking/working in an area
of water or wet flooring (See Figure 2). It appears from the photo that a bottle of water was
opened and poured on the dock plate and allowed to flow in a flooring region to the right
of the plaintiff.
Figure 2: Close Up of Plaintiff’s Photo
• Photos from the property manager revealed signs of water to the left of the plaintiff and
not in the walking/working area of the plaintiff (See Figure 3).
Figure 3: Property Manager Photo
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 4
SITE INSPECTION:
On November 11, 2021, ARCCA reported to 85 10th Avenue, New York, NY, (the premises) for
the purposes of a site inspection (See Figure 4). The building was located just east of the Hudson
River between W 16th Street on the north side (one-way east), 10th Avenue on the east side (one-
way north), W 15th Street on the south side (one-way west), and 11th Avenue/Route 9A (major
divided roadway/highway north and south). The loading dock entrance was located on the west
end of the south side of the building, indicated circa the blue arrow in Figure 4.
Figure 4: The Premises
The loading dock consisted of two loading bays sharing a common dock level (See Figure 5).
Based on the photos provided, the incident occurred on the west bay as opposed to the east bay.
The entire floor of the loading dock was equipped with a metal diamond plate covering. At the
time of inspection arrival, the flooring of the docks and bay had been cleaned with a water hose.
There was a water hose reel located on the wall within the west bay.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 5
Figure 5: Loading Dock
Within the west bay on the west wall was the same metal dock board leaning up against the wall
as was seen in the provided photos. Above the dock plate, there were no HVAC or mechanical
pipes or systems that would result in a leak upon the dock plate as shown in provided photos (See
Figure 6).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 6
Figure 6: Area Above the Dock Pate
Based on the photographs provided, the pallet was stacked to a reference height of approximately
6 feet (See Figure 7). Minus the pallet thickness and the relative difference between the truck and
the loading dock, the height of the stacked materials on the pallet was conservatively around 5
feet.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 7
Figure 7: Reference Height
The slip resistance of the incident flooring was measured using a calibrated Mark III tribometer,
Serial No. 42 (See Figure 8). Slip resistance was taken both when wet and dry. The Mark III was
calibrated per ASTM F2508-13 Standard Practice for Validation, Calibration, and Certification of
Walkway Tribometers Using Reference Tiles. Calibration determined that the Mark III, Serial No.
42, tribometer had a slip resistance threshold value of 0.431. The 0.43 slip resistance value reflects
a margin of safety given the dichotomy between the reference tiles distinguishing between a slip
and non-slip condition. The Mark III, Serial No. 42, was set up to use a flat grooved Neolite test
foot to determine slip resistance in accordance with standard testing protocol.2,3,4,5
1 ASTM F2508 Validation Report of Slip-Test, test date August 3, 2020.
2 ASTM F1677-96 Standard Test Method for Using a Portable Inclinable Articulated Strut Slip Tester (PIAST)
3 Manufacturer’s Instructions
4 Powers, et al. (2010). Validation of walkway tribometers: establishing a reference standard. Journal of Forensic Science, 55(2),
366-370.
5 ASTM F2508-13 Standard Practice for Validation, Calibration, and Certification of Walkway Tribometers Using Reference
Tiles.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 8
Figure 8: Mark III Tribometer
The resulting dry and wet slip resistance testing readings and analysis were tabulated and
summarized in Table 1.
Plate
Direction Dry Wet
N 0.70 0.58
W 0.68 0.58
S 0.68 0.58
E 0.68 0.6
average 0.69 0.59
Std Dev 0.01 0.01
Table 2: Analysis of Slip Resistance Measurement Readings
Based on the testing performed, the flooring of the loading dock was slip resistant when both wet
and dry. The scientific testing was also verified empirically with ordinary footwear (See Figure 9).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 9
Figure 9: Empirical Testing of Flooring
The diamond plate flooring consisted of anti-skid raised “diamonds” that were approximately ¾
inch in length, ¼ inch max in width, and 1/16 to 1/8 inch in height (See Figure 10). The diamonds
were arranged in 45-degree crisscross pattern spaced with coverage of less than an inch square
(tight pattern).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 10
Figure 10: Diamond Plate
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 11
ENGINEERING RESEARCH:
Based on NYC’s geographical information system (GIS), the building/premises, 85 10th Avenue,
was constructed in 1914 (See NYCityMaps attached to report as Attachment B). The building was
an eleven-floor commercial and office building.
Review of NYC Department of Building records revealed that the building was used for a variety
of uses throughout the years (See NYC DOB excerpts attached to report as Attachment C). A
Certificate of Occupancy (CO) dated 1922 indicated that the premises was originally a 6 story
tenement house (509-515 West 15th Street). A CO dated 1937 indicated that there might have been
a first-floor store located on the 11th Avenue side. A temporary CO dated 1995 indicated that the
first evidence of a 1st floor loading and receiving area. Floors 2 through 10 were noted as
manufacturing. By 1997, the temporary CO of 1995 became a permanent CO. In 2010, a temporary
CO for building alterations revealed a change of use for floors 2 through 10 as offices. Construction
classification was noted as “Old Code: 1”. The occupancy classification of the loading area was
noted as “E” which was the 1968 NYC Occupancy Classification code for Business. In 2020, a
temporary CO for the building indicated the occupancy group for the loading area was F-4, which
would be 2008 and above NYC Building Code classifications.
The job application details for both the 2010 and 2020 temporary CO’s revealed change of use
applications associated with eating and drinking establishment(s) on the first floor, and office and
manufacturing on the subsequent upper floors. Both job applications were submitted per the 1968
NYC Building Code. By and large, we can consider the loading dock area to be pursuant to the
1968 NYC Building Code.
Since the emergence of the loading dock in 1995, there have been no complaints or violations
noted about the loading dock from the NYD DOB.
Historical research revealed that the building was connected via a catwalk to a building that was
identified as Uneeda Bakers company (See Figure 11). Uneeda Bakers was a part of the National
Biscuit Company that later became known as Nabisco.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 12
Figure 11: NYC Public Library Historical Photos
N.B.C. or Nabisco owned a number of buildings including the premises (See Figure 12), with various
structures demolished at different points in time (See Figure 12).
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 13 ARCCA
In 1890, eight large baking companies merged to form the New York Biscuit Company, soon
thereafter absorbing 12 more bakeries. To house the new company, they builta
Romanesque-style complex on the block bound by 10th and 11thAvenues and 15th and 16th
Streets. Eight years later.
they merged with Chicago's American Biscuit and Manufacturing
Company to form the National BiscuitCompany-Nabisco. Over time. the complex expanded
to include 17 different buildings-a market, factory. retailstores, and offices.
of Che4sea Market
Image courtesy
Fi 12: Historical View of the Building Complex
BUILDING C :
Construction Codes
Based on engineering search, the incident area was largely governed by the 1968 NYC Building
Code. The loading dock area was not a part of means of egress for the building and was not subject
to any specific construction codes, except that the loading area be designed for the structural loads
of trucks/shipping vehicles, the materials being loaded or unloaded, and any devices being used
for loading and unloading. There were no handrail/guard rail requirements for the edge of the
loading dock level as the loading dock was not a part of any stairs or ramps. Specifically, under
the 1968 NYC Code, there was no requirement for slip resistance for the incident area.
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022
Michael Carro, Esq.
June XX, 2022
Page 14 ARCCA
Verified Bill of Particulars Allegations
Title 27 of the NYC Administrative Codes were/are actually the 1968 NYC Building Code. From
the 1968 NYC Building Code means of egress components are known as required components.
stair"
There was terminology such as "interior that does not apply to all stairs interior to the
stair"
building. Under the code "interior was a required stair within a building leading to an Exit.
"access"
Also note that the term does not refer to handicapped accessibility as would be today's
vernacular.
*** ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS
***Italitted words within definitionsare themsehts defined
elsewherein thissecdon.
§[C26-201.0) 27-232 Definitions.-Wcxds thatare capitalized
are defined in this section.
...
ACCESS STAIR.-A stair between two floors, which
does not serve as a required exit. (See EXTERIOR
STAIR and INTERIOR STAI
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 EXHIBIT G FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK --____________--_________-------.....--------_______---_............x OSCAR A. SOSA, Index No.: 157001/2019 Plaintiff, AFFIDAVIT OF -against- PETER CHEN 85 TENTH AVENUE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Defendant. ______________________..___....------____.._____---______.._______Ç STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER ) PETER CHEN, M.S.M.E., MBA, P.E., CFEI being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am currently employed as a Mechanical Engineer for ARCCA, Inc. in Penns Park, Pennsylvania. I am a Professional Engineer, duly licensed in the states of New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I earned my Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1993. I subsequently earned my Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1995. I also earned a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of Hartford in 2003. "1" A true and accurate copy of my curriculum vitae is annexed hereto as Exhibit which sets forth my experience and qualifications. 2. I was retained on behalf of defendant 85 TENTH AVENUE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. ("85 Tenth"), to review the case information, research applicable codes/regulations, as well as visit and inspect the loading dock that was involved in Plaintiff's accident at 85 Tenth Avenue, New York, New York ("the Premise"), on June 10, 2019. 3. It was reported that on June 10, 2019, at approximately 8:30 a.m., Oscar Sosa ("Plaintiff"), sustained injuries when he slipped and fell on the loading dock at the Premise. 4. I personally reviewed certain discovery provided to me, including the Summons and Complaint, Plaintiff's Verified Bill of Particulars, the Guardian Security Report, a video depicting Plaintiff's accident, and photographs exchanged by Plaintiff. Additionally, I conducted engineering research in order to determine the history of the building, as well as assess all applicable codes. (N2172645.1 } FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 5. Figure 1, attached here, shows Plaintiff on the ground after attempting to move a large pallet of grocery and food type materials. It further depicts a dock plate available to the right of Plaintiff on the cinderblock wall past a dolly. Figure 2, attached here, is a close up of Plaintiffs photo which revealed that Plaintiff was not working/walking in an area of water or wet flooring. 6. On November 11, 2021, I reported to the Premise in order to conduct a site inspection. I personally observed the subject dock, took color loading photographs, made all pertinent measurements and tested the slip resistance of the floor of the loading dock under both wet and dry conditions (Pictures #4-10, attached hereto). 7. Based upon the site inspection and testing, engineering research, engineering analysis, code review, and lack of prior accidents, the loading dock at the premises at 85 Tenth was reasonably safe for use at the time of the incident. 10th 8. 85 Avenue, New York, NY is located just east of the Hudson 16th 10th River between W Street on the north side (one-way east), Avenue on the east 15th 11th side (one-way north), W Street on the south side (one-way west), and Avenue/Route 9A (major divided roadway/highway north and south). The loading dock entrance was located on the west end of the south side of the building (Picture #4). 9. The loading dock consists of two loading bays sharing a common dock level (Figure 5). According to the photographs provided to me (Figures #1-3), plaintiff's incident occurred on the we.st bay as opposed to the east bay. Further, the entire floor of the loading dock was equipped with a metal diamond plate covering. At the time of my inspection arrival, the flooring of the docks and bay had been cleaned with a water hose, and there was a water hose reel located on the wall within the west bay. 10. Additionally, within the west bay, on the west wall, was the same metal dock plate board leaning up against the wall (Figure 1). Above the dock plate, there were no HVAC or mechanical pipes or systems that would result in a leak upon the dock plate (Figure 6). "diamonds" 11. The diamond plate flooring consisted of anti-skid raised that were approximately ¾ inch in length, ¼ inch max in width, and 1/16 to 1/8 inch in height (Figure 10). The diamonds were arranged in 45-degree crisscross pattern spaced with coverage of less than an inch square (tight pattern). 12. I measured the slip resistance of the incident flooring using a calibrated Mark III tribometer, serial No. 42 (Figure 8). The Mark III tribometer was calibrated per ASTM F2508-13 Standard Practice for Validation, Calibration, and Certification of Walkway Tribometers Using Reference Tiles and the slip resistance of the incident flooring was measured both when wet and dry. Calibration determined (N2172545.1 } FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 that the Mark III, Serial No. 42, tribometer had a resistance threshold value of slip 0.43. the 0.43 slip resistance value reflects the margin of given the safety dichotomy between the reference tiles distinguishing between a and condition. The slip non-slip Mark III, Serial No. 42, was set up to use a flat grooved Neolite testfoot to determine slip resistance in accordance with standard protocol. testing 13. Based on calibrated engineering testing, the cause of the incident was not the slip resistance of the flooring. The dock was resistant loading flooring slip when tested under both wet and dry conditions, and was comprised of metal with a dense raised diamond plate pattern. The slip resistance was measured to be 0.69 and 0.59 (average in four ordinate directions) dry and wet, with a standard respectively deviation of 0.01.This was verified empirically with ordinary footwear (Figure 9). 14. Further, the loading dock at the Premise did not violate any applicable codes. 15. Based on codes research and my site inspection, the loading dock was largely subject to the 1968 NYC Building Codes for construction and maintenance. There was no evidence of any kind of building code violation for the loading dock or any kind of maintenance issue that would have resulted in the incident. 16. Pursuant to this code, the loading dock was not subject to any specific construction codes as itwas not a means of egress, otherwise considered a required component. Instead, all that was required was the loading area be designed for the structural loads of trucks/shipping vehicles, the materials being loaded or unloaded, and any devices being used for loading and unloading. There were no handrail/ guard rail requirements for the edge of the loading dock level as the loading dock was not a part of any stairs or ramps 17. Under the 1968 NYC Code, there was no requirement for slip resistantflooring for the incident area at the Premise. 18. Plaintiff's Verified Bill of Particulars alleges 85 Tenth violated various provisions of Title 27 of the NYC Administrative 27- Codes; specifically, § § 375, 27-292, 501 and 27-232. Title 27 of the NYC Administrative Codes was and is the 1968 NYC Building Code. 19. Section 27-232 of the Building Code of the City of New York is the definitions section of the NYC Building Code and does not promulgate any kind of standards upon the loading dock area. Therefore, there can be no vio.lation pursuant to this Section. 20. Section 27-375 of the 1968 NYC Building Code provides stair" requirements for interior stairs. According to the code, an "interior was a required stairwithin a building leading to an Exit. However, this code is not applicable as the loading dock was not a part of interior stairs as defined by the code, as it was (N2172645.1 } FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 not a required element, and was not a part of any kind of means of egress for the building to a required exit. 21. Section §27-929 of the NYC Building Code deals with Fire Department Access, and is inapplicable because the loading dock area was not considered a part of the fire department access. 22. Lastly, Plaintiff alleges a violation of §501 of the Building Code of the City of New York; however, no such code exists. The code believed to be alleged here would be the NYC Fire Code §501, which deals with fire operations features of a building to ensure safe and effective firefighting operations. Based on codes research and my site inspection, the loading dock area was not a part of a means of egress or means of escape for the building and, therefore, was not subject to he 2014 NYC Fire Codes as with regards to means of egress flooring. That being said, the flooring would meet the 2014 NYC Fire Codes as the flooring was slip resistant when both wet and dry. 23. Based upon engineering analysis, the cause of the incident was operator error on behalf of the Plaintiff. From the photographs provided to me (Figured 1-3), at the time of his accident, Plaintiff was attempting to unload a pallet from his truck onto the loading dock utilizing a pallet jack. However, based on the photographs, Plaintiff did not raise the pallet jack high enough to clear the bottom of the pallet from the edge of the truck, which was necessary to overcome the drag force created, given the height differential between Plaintiff's truck and the slightly lower level of the loading dock. 24. From the photographs provided, itappears Plaintiff was attempting to unload a standard pallet. A standard pallet is approximately 48-inch by 40-inches and weighs approximately 37 pounds. 25. Further, based on the photographs provided, the pallet Plaintiff was unloading from the truck was stacked to a reference height of approximately six feet (Figure 7). Minus the pallet thickness and the relative difference between the truck and the loading dock, the height of the stacked materials on the pallet was conservatively around five feet. As such, pursuant to the Standard Pallet Sizes References Guide from Greenway Products & Services, Inc., the usage rank was considered to be a 4 for "Dry goods, Dairy, Produce". Therefore, the estimated weight of the pallet would be 833 to 995 pounds. 26. Given the size of the load and height differential between the truck and loading dock, the manual pallet jack was not raised high enough to clear the bottom of the pallet from the edge of the truck when transitioning to the slightly lower "grounded" level. Upon the pallet becoming and contacting the edge of the truck, the horizontal pull load of the pallet jack will greatly rise from the normal rolling resistance of the pallet jack to essentially mere sliding friction of the wooden pallet on the diamond plated metal edge of the truck. { N2172645. 1J FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 27. Based on known rolling resistance values of wheels and steel plate, the estimated pallet jack horizontal pull force would range depending on wheel composition (hard rubber or polyurethane). If hard rubber, the pull force would range from 252 to 303 pounds and therefore, more likely than not, the wheels of the pallet jack were not hard rubber. More likely than not, the palletjack wheels were composed of polyurethane, which would result in a horizontal pull force ranging from 25 to 57 pounds. 28. However, based on known wood and steel friction values, the horizontal pull force of the pallet jack will greatly increase to a range of 333 to 646 pounds. Even if we assume a 50% reduction in horizontal forces due to a split of vertical forces between the pallet jack wheels and the pallet jack contacting the edge of the truck, the horizontal pull force would stillrange from approximately 167 to 323 pounds. 29. Even if we were to assume Plaintiff could translate allof his weight into a horizontal pull force, with a slip resistance value measured at 0.59 wet and 0.69 dry, the plaintiff would have to pull or weigh an equivalent of 241 to 547 pounds to overcome the friction created by the pallet to the truck, a conservative 50% assuming reduction in horizontal force. 30. From the NIOSH lifting index, under the best ideal body lifting position, the recommended weight limit (RWL) for a two-handed liftis 51 pounds. Attempting to pull even the conservative estimate of 16.7 to 323 pounds was far beyond known safety standards for weightlifting in the workplace. 31. To overcome the huge drag force created when the pallet wheel caught on the edge of the truck, the pallet forks and pallet needed to be raised higher to account for the height differential between the truck and loading dock. Based on the engineering analysis, upon encountering the large horizontal force, the operator should have either raised the pallet to the appropriate height, or stopped and begun unpackaging and unloading the pallet (from the top down). The pallet could be repacked and reloaded once the pallet could be safely moved to the loading dock level. 32. Based on the photographs, the plaintiff was tasked at a minimum to perform inside delivery. Inside delivery typically means that the goods being delivered are dropped off inside of the residence or business. For inside delivery, the shipper or deliverer such as the plaintiff was entirely responsible for safely delivering the goods. That safety included the deliverer's own safety. 33. Based on the materials reviewed, plaintiff was expected to perform for the delivery and there was no expectation that anyone from the premises would be present to assist, manage, or control the delivery. As such, the plaintiff was fully responsible for making the delivery in a safe manner not only for himself, but for the property and the goods being delivered. (N2172645.1 } FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 34. Based on research of the NYC DOB database, there has never been a complaint or violation about the loading dock since itsemergence in I995. 35. Based on the site inspection and testing, engineering research, engineering analysis, code review, and lack of history of any kind of issue, I can conclude within a degree of engineering certainty that the loading dock of the premises was reasonably safe for use at the time of the incident when used in the manner in which the loading dock was designed. The loading dock was designed to be slip resistant when both wet and dry, and would be reasonably safe for pulling of reasonable amounts of load in the range of up to approximately 50 pounds depending on t ight of the person pulling. P ER CHEN M.S.M.E., M.B.A., P.E. CFEI Sworn to before me this ay of July 2022 DAE GON KIM Notary Public, State of New York Ucense Number: 01Kl6392677 Expiration Date: 08/19/2023 Qudified in Westchssier County {N2172645.I } FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 ARCCA, INCORPORATED 2288 SECOND STREET PIKE P.O. BOX 78 PENNS PARK, PA 18943 PHONE 215-598-9750 FAX 215-598-9751 www. arc c a. c om June XX, 2022 Michael Carro, Esq. London Fischer LLP 59 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Re: Oscar A. Sosa vs. 85 Tenth Avenue Associates, L.L.C. Supreme Court of New York County of New York Index No.: 157001/2019 ARCCA File No.: 4729-017 Date of Loss: June 10, 2019 Dear Mr. Carro: ARCCA is pleased to submit a report on the above matter. This report is based on a site inspection, written material review, engineering research and analysis, and the background, education, and experience of Mr. Peter Chen, see CV attached as Attachment A. ARCCA reserves the right to supplement or revise this report if additional information becomes available. BACKGROUND: On June 10, 2019, Mr. Oscar Sosa allegedly slipped on a loading dock located at 85 10th Avenue, New York, NY. WRITTEN MATERIAL REVIEW: ARCCA reviewed the following written materials: • Summons and Complaint, dated July 15, 2019. • Verified Bill of Particulars, dated December 12, 2019. • Guardian Security Report, dated June 10, 2019. • Photos Verified Bill of Particulars provided the following information: • Incident occurred on June 10, 2019 at approximately 8:30 a.m. (para. 2). • Incident location was on a loading dock located at 85 10th Avenue, New York, NY (para. 4). • VBP alleges without explanation or substantiation violations of 27-375, 27-292, 501, 27- 232 of the Building Code of the City of New York. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 2 Guardian Security Report provided the following information: Photos provided the following information: • Photo from Plaintiff was of Plaintiff on ground (see Figure 1). Plaintiff was attempting to move a large pallet of grocery and food type materials. A dock plate was available to the right of the plaintiff on the cinderblock wall past a dolly. The pallet jack was not raised high enough, and the bottom of the pallet was stuck at the rear edge of the truck. Figure 1: Plaintiff’s Photo FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 3 • Close up of Plaintiff’s photo revealed that the plaintiff was not walking/working in an area of water or wet flooring (See Figure 2). It appears from the photo that a bottle of water was opened and poured on the dock plate and allowed to flow in a flooring region to the right of the plaintiff. Figure 2: Close Up of Plaintiff’s Photo • Photos from the property manager revealed signs of water to the left of the plaintiff and not in the walking/working area of the plaintiff (See Figure 3). Figure 3: Property Manager Photo FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 4 SITE INSPECTION: On November 11, 2021, ARCCA reported to 85 10th Avenue, New York, NY, (the premises) for the purposes of a site inspection (See Figure 4). The building was located just east of the Hudson River between W 16th Street on the north side (one-way east), 10th Avenue on the east side (one- way north), W 15th Street on the south side (one-way west), and 11th Avenue/Route 9A (major divided roadway/highway north and south). The loading dock entrance was located on the west end of the south side of the building, indicated circa the blue arrow in Figure 4. Figure 4: The Premises The loading dock consisted of two loading bays sharing a common dock level (See Figure 5). Based on the photos provided, the incident occurred on the west bay as opposed to the east bay. The entire floor of the loading dock was equipped with a metal diamond plate covering. At the time of inspection arrival, the flooring of the docks and bay had been cleaned with a water hose. There was a water hose reel located on the wall within the west bay. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 5 Figure 5: Loading Dock Within the west bay on the west wall was the same metal dock board leaning up against the wall as was seen in the provided photos. Above the dock plate, there were no HVAC or mechanical pipes or systems that would result in a leak upon the dock plate as shown in provided photos (See Figure 6). FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 6 Figure 6: Area Above the Dock Pate Based on the photographs provided, the pallet was stacked to a reference height of approximately 6 feet (See Figure 7). Minus the pallet thickness and the relative difference between the truck and the loading dock, the height of the stacked materials on the pallet was conservatively around 5 feet. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 7 Figure 7: Reference Height The slip resistance of the incident flooring was measured using a calibrated Mark III tribometer, Serial No. 42 (See Figure 8). Slip resistance was taken both when wet and dry. The Mark III was calibrated per ASTM F2508-13 Standard Practice for Validation, Calibration, and Certification of Walkway Tribometers Using Reference Tiles. Calibration determined that the Mark III, Serial No. 42, tribometer had a slip resistance threshold value of 0.431. The 0.43 slip resistance value reflects a margin of safety given the dichotomy between the reference tiles distinguishing between a slip and non-slip condition. The Mark III, Serial No. 42, was set up to use a flat grooved Neolite test foot to determine slip resistance in accordance with standard testing protocol.2,3,4,5 1 ASTM F2508 Validation Report of Slip-Test, test date August 3, 2020. 2 ASTM F1677-96 Standard Test Method for Using a Portable Inclinable Articulated Strut Slip Tester (PIAST) 3 Manufacturer’s Instructions 4 Powers, et al. (2010). Validation of walkway tribometers: establishing a reference standard. Journal of Forensic Science, 55(2), 366-370. 5 ASTM F2508-13 Standard Practice for Validation, Calibration, and Certification of Walkway Tribometers Using Reference Tiles. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 8 Figure 8: Mark III Tribometer The resulting dry and wet slip resistance testing readings and analysis were tabulated and summarized in Table 1. Plate Direction Dry Wet N 0.70 0.58 W 0.68 0.58 S 0.68 0.58 E 0.68 0.6 average 0.69 0.59 Std Dev 0.01 0.01 Table 2: Analysis of Slip Resistance Measurement Readings Based on the testing performed, the flooring of the loading dock was slip resistant when both wet and dry. The scientific testing was also verified empirically with ordinary footwear (See Figure 9). FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 9 Figure 9: Empirical Testing of Flooring The diamond plate flooring consisted of anti-skid raised “diamonds” that were approximately ¾ inch in length, ¼ inch max in width, and 1/16 to 1/8 inch in height (See Figure 10). The diamonds were arranged in 45-degree crisscross pattern spaced with coverage of less than an inch square (tight pattern). FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 10 Figure 10: Diamond Plate FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 11 ENGINEERING RESEARCH: Based on NYC’s geographical information system (GIS), the building/premises, 85 10th Avenue, was constructed in 1914 (See NYCityMaps attached to report as Attachment B). The building was an eleven-floor commercial and office building. Review of NYC Department of Building records revealed that the building was used for a variety of uses throughout the years (See NYC DOB excerpts attached to report as Attachment C). A Certificate of Occupancy (CO) dated 1922 indicated that the premises was originally a 6 story tenement house (509-515 West 15th Street). A CO dated 1937 indicated that there might have been a first-floor store located on the 11th Avenue side. A temporary CO dated 1995 indicated that the first evidence of a 1st floor loading and receiving area. Floors 2 through 10 were noted as manufacturing. By 1997, the temporary CO of 1995 became a permanent CO. In 2010, a temporary CO for building alterations revealed a change of use for floors 2 through 10 as offices. Construction classification was noted as “Old Code: 1”. The occupancy classification of the loading area was noted as “E” which was the 1968 NYC Occupancy Classification code for Business. In 2020, a temporary CO for the building indicated the occupancy group for the loading area was F-4, which would be 2008 and above NYC Building Code classifications. The job application details for both the 2010 and 2020 temporary CO’s revealed change of use applications associated with eating and drinking establishment(s) on the first floor, and office and manufacturing on the subsequent upper floors. Both job applications were submitted per the 1968 NYC Building Code. By and large, we can consider the loading dock area to be pursuant to the 1968 NYC Building Code. Since the emergence of the loading dock in 1995, there have been no complaints or violations noted about the loading dock from the NYD DOB. Historical research revealed that the building was connected via a catwalk to a building that was identified as Uneeda Bakers company (See Figure 11). Uneeda Bakers was a part of the National Biscuit Company that later became known as Nabisco. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 12 Figure 11: NYC Public Library Historical Photos N.B.C. or Nabisco owned a number of buildings including the premises (See Figure 12), with various structures demolished at different points in time (See Figure 12). FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 13 ARCCA In 1890, eight large baking companies merged to form the New York Biscuit Company, soon thereafter absorbing 12 more bakeries. To house the new company, they builta Romanesque-style complex on the block bound by 10th and 11thAvenues and 15th and 16th Streets. Eight years later. they merged with Chicago's American Biscuit and Manufacturing Company to form the National BiscuitCompany-Nabisco. Over time. the complex expanded to include 17 different buildings-a market, factory. retailstores, and offices. of Che4sea Market Image courtesy Fi 12: Historical View of the Building Complex BUILDING C : Construction Codes Based on engineering search, the incident area was largely governed by the 1968 NYC Building Code. The loading dock area was not a part of means of egress for the building and was not subject to any specific construction codes, except that the loading area be designed for the structural loads of trucks/shipping vehicles, the materials being loaded or unloaded, and any devices being used for loading and unloading. There were no handrail/guard rail requirements for the edge of the loading dock level as the loading dock was not a part of any stairs or ramps. Specifically, under the 1968 NYC Code, there was no requirement for slip resistance for the incident area. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/15/2022 03:18 PM INDEX NO. 157001/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 23 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/15/2022 Michael Carro, Esq. June XX, 2022 Page 14 ARCCA Verified Bill of Particulars Allegations Title 27 of the NYC Administrative Codes were/are actually the 1968 NYC Building Code. From the 1968 NYC Building Code means of egress components are known as required components. stair" There was terminology such as "interior that does not apply to all stairs interior to the stair" building. Under the code "interior was a required stair within a building leading to an Exit. "access" Also note that the term does not refer to handicapped accessibility as would be today's vernacular. *** ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS ***Italitted words within definitionsare themsehts defined elsewherein thissecdon. §[C26-201.0) 27-232 Definitions.-Wcxds thatare capitalized are defined in this section. ... ACCESS STAIR.-A stair between two floors, which does not serve as a required exit. (See EXTERIOR STAIR and INTERIOR STAI