Firm News

Court Grants Defendants Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint in Case Involving Trip and Fall on Raised Sidewalk Flag

In a decision dated August 5, 2025, the Hon. John J. Kelley granted our clients Verizon New York Inc. and Network Infrastructure Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint as a matter of law. The plaintiff alleged that she tripped and fell on the sidewalk adjacent to 4960 Broadway, New York, New York when the front of her right foot stubbed into an allegedly elevated sidewalk flag, causing her to lose her balance and fall forward. It was claimed that while running conduit from a manhole in the street through the sidewalk and into an adjacent building pursuant to a contract with Verizon, Network Infrastructure damaged or displaced the sidewalk flags and created the condition which caused plaintiff’s accident. At her deposition, plaintiff examined a photograph of the location where her accident occurred and identified the sidewalk flag which caused her to trip and fall. Subsequently, at the deposition of Network, the on-site coordinator was able to identify which sidewalk flags Network had actually performed work on based on the color and appearance of the new flags. Plaintiff’s testimony clearly placed the condition which caused her accident on a sidewalk flag which Network did not work on. The Network witness was also able to testify that the work which Network performed would not have damaged any adjacent flags. In  opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that a question of fact existed as to whether Network’s work on adjacent flags could have displaced or damaged the flag where plaintiff’s accident occurred. However, the Court found that plaintiff’s speculative assertion that Network’s excavation work could have damaged the sidewalk flag failed to raise a triable issue of fact. In light of the foregoing, the Court granted Verizon and Network Infrastructure summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because there was no evidence to support plaintiff’s contentions that they created the tripping hazard which caused her accident. 

Maria B. Lugo v. 4690 Broadway, LLC et al., Index No. 152691/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., Aug. 5, 2025)

We are pleased to announce that Joanne Blair has been elevated to Partner.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6) Claims and Grants City Defendants’ Motion Dismissing Complaint and All Cross-Claims As a Matter of Law

In a decision dated April 11, 2025, Hon. Andrew J. Cohen of Bronx County Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor §§240(1) and 241(6) claims and granted our clients the City of New York and New York City Department of Transportation’s motion for an Order dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims as against them as a matter of law. The plaintiff, an employee of non-party O’Grady Plumbing, claims he was injured at a construction project on a sidewalk and in the street in front of the premises known as 4257 Katonah Avenue, Bronx, New York. He allegedly sustained personal injuries resulting from a metal pipe weighing approximately 4000 pounds that fell into the trench where plaintiff was working in and struck him in the back. Plaintiff alleged that the City defendants are strictly liable because the City of New York is the owner of the street and sidewalk where the accident occurred. The Court determined that the City defendants did not own the building or structure which contracted for the work, had no involvement with the project in question, other than bureaucratic requirements that the plumbing contractor had to fulfill, and had no duty to provide protection. As such, the Court held that the City defendants were not owners within the meaning of the Labor Law thereby resulting in the dismissal of the complaint and all cross-claims as to the City defendants.
Ismajl Mustafaj v. The City of New York et al., Index No. 800323/2022E (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co., Apr. 11, 2025)

We are pleased to announce that Joyce G. Bigelow, Janet P. Ford and Daniel K. McDonough have become Partners of the Firm.

New Jersey Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Claims Arising From Construction Accident on Goethals Bridge Finding That New Jersey Law and Not New York Law Applied and Defendants Were Not Negligent Under New Jersey Law

In a decision dated March 4, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, denied the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s Order granting our clients, defendants NY-NJ Link Developer, LLC, Macquarie Group Limited, Kiewit Development Company and The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s motions for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint related to a workplace incident in which he sustained injuries while working as a laborer on the Goethals Bridge construction project.  The plaintiff, while working on the New Jersey side of the project on October 26, 2017, was struck in the back when an excavator swung a crane mat allegedly without proper signaling. Despite the plaintiff living in New Jersey, getting injured while on the New Jersey side of the bridge and getting his job through a New Jersey union, he brought claims in a New Jersey court alleging negligence under New Jersey law as well as violations of the New York Labor Law.  The New York Labor Law has strict liability provisions which allow workers an easier time to bring a claim against owners and general contractors. In both the lower court and on appeal, our firm successfully argued that New York law did not apply to the case requiring dismissal of all New York Labor Law claims.  The Appellate Division also held that the defendants were not negligent under New Jersey law ruling that the defendants did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care because were considered general contractors and not liable for the subcontractor’s alleged negligence.

Erwin Campoverde v. NY-NJ Link Developer, LLC et al., 2025 WL 682311 (Mar. 4, 2025)

On February 20, Thomas J. Hall, Bryan F. Tiggs and Nicole G. Vevante lectured at a Symposium for Travelers Construction Claims entitled “Strategies to Combat Tactics of Plaintiff’s Counsel in High Exposure Personal Injury Litigation” in New York, New York.

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on His Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6) Claims In Accident Involving Fall From Extension Ladder

In a decision dated February 5, 2025, the Hon. Elena Goldberg-Velazquez of Westchester County Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment which sought judgment as a matter of law against our client, Orienta Beach Club, on his causes of action pursuant to Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6). The plaintiff, an employee of CertaPro Painters, alleged he was injured on May 5, 2023, when the extension ladder he was climbing “slid out” as he was trying to climb to the roof of a cabana to perform work, causing him to fall. In denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on §240(1), the Court held the defendant’s expert raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the angle the plaintiff placed the ladder against the cabana was the sole proximate cause of his accident. In denying the plaintiff summary judgment on his §241(6) cause of action, the Court held the defendant’s expert raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Industrial Code Rules 23-1.21(b)(4)(ii) and 23-2.1(b)(4)(iv) were violated.

Anthony Pugliese v. Orienta Beach Club, Inc., Index No. 68905/2023 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co., Feb. 5, 2025)

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint and All Cross-Claims Against Contractor in Labor Law Action

In a decision dated January 15, 2024, the Hon. Joy Campenelli of Kings County Supreme Court granted our summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint and all cross-claims against our client, JT Magen & Company Inc. (“JT Magen”). The plaintiff, an employee of Sal’s Scrap Metal, alleged that he was injured while picking up debris from a construction project at 485 Lexington Avenue in New York, New York, when he was struck by a hook connected to a trailer winch that came loose from a dumpster. Our client had done work in the building previously, but was not the general contractor on the project that the plaintiff was working on when the accident occurred and had no connection to the accident. Ultimately, the Court agreed that JT Magen was not a Labor Law defendant, was not negligent and did not owe contractual or common law indemnity or contribution to any party.

Krzystof Torba v. Green 485 TIC LLC, et. al, Index No. 516622/2016 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co., Jan. 15, 2025)

Second Department Reinstates Defendant’s Affirmative Defense of Comparative Fault In Motor Vehicle Accident Case Where Plaintiff Was Awarded Summary Judgment on Liability

In a decision dated November 27, 2024, the Appellate Division, Second Department modified the lower Court’s decision by adhering to that portion of the decision which granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability while reinstating our clients Michael Colonna and Royal Realty Corp.’s affirmative defense of comparative fault, which was dismissed by the lower Court. This personal injury action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 9, 2021, on 49th Street at its intersection with Second Avenue in New York, New York. Before depositions, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability as well as the dismissal of our clients’ comparative fault affirmative defense, based on the fact that his vehicle was hit in the rear. In opposing plaintiff’s motion, we argued that there is a non-negligent explanation for the accident—that plaintiff stopped short for no apparent reason—which precludes summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the issue of liability. The lower Court granted plaintiff summary judgment on liability and dismissed our clients’ affirmative defense of comparative fault. On appeal, although the Second Department affirmed summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor on liability, it reinstated our clients’ comparative fault affirmative defense. Prior to this decision, our clients were confined to a damages-only trial with no ability to offset plaintiff’s damages due to his own culpable conduct in how he operated his vehicle, i.e., there would have been no apportionment of fault to plaintiff because our clients’ comparative fault affirmative defense had been dismissed. As a result of this decision, our clients’ can now argue that plaintiff was also at fault, reducing the damages attributed to our clients.

Casimiro Reyes Martinez v. Michael Colonna et al., 232 A.D.3d 876, 222 N.Y.S.3d 146 (2d Dep’t 2024)

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint in Slip and Fall Accident Involving Alleged Water Condition on Basement Floor

In a decision dated December 5, 2024, the Hon. Ulysses B. Leverett granted our client 82 Associates LLC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint as a matter of law. The plaintiff alleged that he slipped and fell in the basement of the premises known as 37-02 82nd Street, Jackson Heights, New York, due to water or other wet substance. It is claimed that 82 Associates, the owner of the premises, was negligent in permitting the water or other wet substance to become and remain at the location and that it had actual and constructive of the condition. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified as part of his morning “sweep” of the premises, he went down the stairs to the basement and walked across the section of floor where he subsequently slipped on his way to the lunchroom. He did not observe water on the floor and/or have difficulty walking in the area. After the plaintiff completed his morning “sweep” of the basement, and as he was returning to the main level, his left foot slipped on droplets of water on the floor and he fell. Plaintiff admitted that he believed the water had come from the drain in the basement. He admitted that he did not see water coming from the drain and did not know where the water came from or when the water spilled to the ground. The plaintiff referred to a past flood in a different location resulting from the roof and another incident which involved water backup, subsequent to his accident, resulting from heavy rain. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff argued that an owner has a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain its property under the circumstances. Plaintiff also argued that the defendant was aware that water would flow from the drain. However, the Court found that 82 Associates’ general awareness of this recurring condition was insufficient to establish its constructive notice of the alleged water on the basement floor which allegedly caused the plaintiff to fall. Here, the plaintiff was unable to testify that he observed any water in the area he was walking in, before he fell. Further, there was no evidence the condition existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident. According to the Court, plaintiff’s inability to make the required showing “‘create[d] the possibility that the condition may have emanated only moments before the accident, through no fault or with no knowledge of the defendant, any other condition being pure speculation’”. In light of the foregoing, the Court granted 82 Associates summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint because the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whether the defendant had notice of the condition which allegedly caused plaintiff’s fall and because plaintiff failed to establish, in opposition to the motion, that the source of the water at issue was the drain system and that the defendant had immediate notice of it.

Higinio Hago v. 82 Associates LLC et al., Index No. 701065/2020 (Sup. Ct., Queens Co., Dec. 5, 2024)