Representative Accomplishments

Labor Law

  • We were successful in obtaining an affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (the State's highest court) unanimously affirming a decision of the Appellate Division, First Department dismissing the plaintiff's claims pursuant to Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200. In this case, plaintiff, a concrete laborer at a high-rise construction site, claimed he was injured when he tripped over an electrical conduit. The Court of Appeals found that the court below properly concluded that plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action failed because the electrical pipe or conduit plaintiff tripped over was an integral part of the construction. The Court also found that plaintiff could not recover for negligence or pursuant to Labor Law § 200 as he failed to establish that the on-site safety manager controlled the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition. Sean O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction, Inc., et al.; 28 A.D.2d 225 (1st Dept. 2006); affirmed 7 N.Y.3rd 805 (August 31, 2006).
  • We obtained an affirmance on appeal by the First Department of a dismissal of a third party action brought against our contractor client that had been hired to perform work for the City of New York. The defendant/third-party plaintiff, City of New York, moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it did not have actual or written notice of any dangerous condition at the location of the plaintiff's injury. Simultaneously, we moved for summary judgment to remove any question of material fact as to whether our client's work could have caused the dangerous condition. By producing the contract for the work involved and the only incident report on record for our client, we successfully accomplished just that. With the defendant not having actual notice and there being no evidence that the defendant or one of the third party defendants caused the hazardous condition, the Court was left with no choice but to grant the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismiss all the claims and cross claims against our client. Segundo Bolanos, et al. v. City of New York, and other actions, 816 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2006 N.Y. Slip. Op. 04151 (1st Dept. - May 2006).
  • We were successful in convincing an appellate court to search the record and dismiss an injured construction worker's Labor Law § 241(6) claim against a project owner premised on a violation of the Industrial Code. Plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 200 claims were also dismissed. Plaintiff was allegedly injured when the garbage container he was pushing tipped over and pinned him below the waist. He sustained severe and traumatic personal injuries. The plaintiff argued that the project owner was strictly liable because of a failure to provide him with proper or adequate construction equipment. The trial Court denied the motion to dismiss finding that an issue of fact existed as to the presence of a defective wheel on the container. The Court also denied the contractor's cross-motion to dismiss the project owner's cross-claim for indemnity. On appeal, the appellate court, upon a searching of the record, dismissed the remaining Labor Law § 241(6) claim against the project owner because plaintiff failed to submit admissible non-hearsay evidence establishing an issue of fact that a defective wheel existed. Ruggiero v. Cardella Trucking 16 A.D.3d 342, 739 N.Y.S.2d 337 (1st Dept. 2005).
  • We were successful in obtaining a unanimous affirmance in the Appellate Division, Second Department of an Order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as a matter of law. In this personal injury action, the plaintiff fell from a six-foot scaffold while rearranging some cement blocks at a construction site. The scaffold did not shake or move. Plaintiff claimed that the failure to equip the scaffold with guard rails or other safety devices was a violation of Labor Law Section 240(1) and that such violation was a substantial factor in contributing to his injuries. We successfully argued that not every fall from a scaffold constitutes strict liability under the labor law. This is especially so in a case where plaintiff offered conflicting versions of how the accident occurred. More importantly, by virtue of the Appellate Division's affirmance of the decision below, we were able to shift the entire risk, i.e. obtaining indemnity for our client for the entire loss including legal fees and expenses from the trade contractor who was responsible for the supervision and control of plaintiff's work - his employer. Plaintiff's most recent settlement demand had been $4.5 million. Reborchick v. Bovis, 10 A.D.3d 713, 781 N.Y.S.2d 899 (2nd Dept. 2004).

  • We succeeded in achieving a landmark decision from the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, in Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio Associates. Abbatiello resolved a split among the intermediary appellate divisions in holding that a building owner is not strictly liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for injuries sustained by a cable television technician performing work on its property without its knowledge or consent, despite the non-delegable duty imposed by this statute on an owner to provide a safe work place to those performing work on its premises. The plaintiff, an employee of Paragon Cable of Manhattan was dispatched to the building owned by Lancaster Studio Associates to investigate a tenant's complaint of a cable reception problem. The plaintiff sustained severe personal injuries as a result of a fall from a ladder. He sued the building owner, Lancaster, who then impleaded Paragon Cable, the plaintiff's employer. The Court of Appeals refused to impose absolute liability on an owner where a cable technician is injured while performing work without the owner's knowledge or consent. Absent some sort of nexus between the owner and the worker, the Labor Law's strict liability provisions would not be applicable. The owner cannot be charged with the non-delegable duty of providing a safe work place for a cable television repair worker of whom it was wholly unaware. Abbatiello v. Lancaster, et al, 3 N.Y.3d 46, 781 N.Y.S.2d 477 (2004).

  • In a case that establishes new precedent, we won an appeal from the lower court's refusal to dismiss a lawsuit against our client, a major construction manager, in an action brought by an employee of a trade contractor for injuries sustained when he fell while climbing a ladder that had slipped on a wet floor. The appellate court reversed the lower court and dismissed the action. Plaintiff had claimed that as he was climbing the ladder it moved and thus failed to protect him. We successfully argued that a worker with one foot up a ladder and one foot down on the ground cannot maintain an action under Labor Law § 240(1) because he did not fall from a height. Simply stated, plaintiff was still on the ground when he the ladder slipped due to a wet floor. We were also successful in shifting the entire risk, i.e. getting indemnity for our client, for the entire loss including legal fees and expenses from the trade contractor who was responsible for the water on the floor. Vasiliades v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 3 A.D.3d 400, 771 N.Y.S.2d 27 (1st Dept, 2004).

  • In a vehicular accident where our client's truck allegedly came in contact with plaintiffs' car, the claims of the driver of the car and his passenger were dismissed on the grounds that the no-fault statutory threshold was not satisfied and thus their actions could not be maintained. The driver and passenger claimed they sustained serious back injuries including disc herniations. Campbell v. Cloverleaf, 5 A.D.2d 169, 773 N.Y.S.2d 50 (1st Dep't 2004).

  • Wrongful death claim dismissed under scaffold law, statutes creating duty to maintain a safe workplace and requiring reasonable safety in the workplace. Decedent, a steamfitter, suffered a fatal heart attack in the aftermath of a hoist breakdown which necessitated his walking up 14 flights of stairs, twice in a few hours, along with his tools and paraphernalia, in order to raise a pipe. Reilly v. Newireen Associates, et al., 303 A.D.2d 214, 756 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1st Dep't 2003).

  • A jury verdict under Labor Law § 241(6) was reversed as to liability and damages on the theory that it appeared that there had been a trade-off on a finding of liability in return for a compromise on damages. McKenna v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 302 A.D.2d 329, 756 N.Y.S.2d 181 (1st Dep't 2003).

  • In a serious case involving a fall by a worker at the construction site of the NY Times printing plant, construction manager, whom we represented, obtained reversal of lower court's denial of motion for summary judgment. Even though the construction manager was responsible for the plywood-gaps in the pressroom floor on which plaintiff lost his footing, we successfully argued that the focus must be on the nature of the construction manager's relationship to the work in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of the injury and not the cause of the injury. Wong v. The N.Y. Times, 297 A.D.2d 544, 747N.Y.S.2d 213 (1st Dep't 2002).

  • Action dismissed against construction manager of a hospital in an action brought by employees and patients for injuries caused by dust blown from air ducts as a result of renovation of HVAC system. Hunter v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., 299 A.D.2d 175, 749 N.Y.S.2d 525 (1st Dep't 2002).

  • Tate v. Clancy-Cullen Storage Co., Inc., 171 A.D.2d 292, 575 N.Y.S.2d 832 (1st Dep't 1991) (established the limits of intoxication as a defense in a Labor Law case).