In a decision dated June 9, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his claim pursuant to Labor Law §240(1) against our clients, J.T. Magen & Company Inc., Nordstrom, Inc., Broadway 57th/58th Retail Investor, LLC, 1790 Broadway Associates LLC and ULM I Holding Corp. The plaintiff claimed he was struck by a 350-pound duct that fell while being transported on wooden dollies, stacked over eight feet high and unsecured. Although the Court acknowledged that plaintiff established a prima facie entitlement to summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law §240(1) under his version of events, it held that the medical records and workers’ compensation documents submitted by the defense raised a question of fact by reflecting that plaintiff may have been injured while lifting or carrying the ductwork, rather than being struck by a falling object. The Court specifically found that Dr. Morrison’s records were admissible as business records and constituted admissions attributable to plaintiff, rejecting plaintiff’s attempt to avoid those statements based upon an alleged language barrier. With conflicting accounts of how the accident occurred, the court found a genuine issue of fact existed and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Carlos Villanueva v. J.T. Magen & Company Inc. et al, 2026 WL 1655913, — N.Y.3d— (1st Dep’t June 9, 2026)