Firm News

On March 10, Thomas J. Hall, Bryan F. Tiggs and Nicole G. Vevante lectured at a Symposium for Travelers Construction Claims entitled “Strategies for the Effective Management of High Exposure Personal Injury Litigation” in New York, New York.

First Department Unanimously Affirms Decision Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint as to Defendants Who Owned and Managed Parking Lot Where Plaintiff Allegedly Tripped and Fell

In a decision dated March 5, 2026, the First Department, Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the granting of summary judgment to our clients, 2001 Marcus Avenue LLC, 2001 Marcus Avenue Special Manager LLC, Jeffrey Management Corp., The Feil Organization, Inc. Broadwall Management Corp. and Bldg 1031 LLC, dismissing the plaintiff’s entire complaint asserted against them arising from a trip and fall over a curb bordering a handicap access ramp.  The plaintiff sued the owner and managing agent of the parking lot where the accident occurred, alleging that she was injured after stepping from the parking lot onto the sidewalk of a parking valet island.  She claimed that she did not see the ramp as it was an “optical illusion”, despite the curb she stepped onto having bright yellow paint on it to warn pedestrians.  The First Department affirmed the granting of summary judgment to the defendants noting that the curb was painted bright yellow to distinguish it from the adjacent gray concrete ramp and black parking lot, making the allegedly dangerous condition open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.  The Court further noted that the curb which the plaintiff chose to step onto was raised to prevent wheelchair patrons from accidentally rolling into the parking lot, and it was not part of the marked pedestrian walkway. Moreover, the ramp complied with all relevant building codes, was approved before construction and after it was completed by the local municipality, and it had been in place for over 10 years without any prior incident. 

Norine Mueller v. 2001 March Avenue, LLC, et al., 2026 WL 615831, —N.Y.S.3d — (1st Dep’t Mar. 5, 2026)

Court Grants Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Third-Party Complaint in Labor Law Action

In a decision dated February 9, 2026, Hon. Phaedra F. Perry-Bond of the New York County Supreme Court granted our client Atlantic Cooling Technologies and Services, LLC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint asserted against it in a Labor Law action arising from an alleged fall inside a cooling tower at a Manhattan commercial property. The plaintiff commenced the action against the owner and related entities, alleging that he sustained injuries while performing work on a cooling tower at 399 Park Avenue. The property owner, the Board of Managers of the 399 Park Avenue Condominium, subsequently commenced a third-party action for contractual indemnification, common law indemnification, contribution and breach of contract for the failure to procure insurance against the plaintiff’s employer, Atlantic, which had been retained in connection with cooling tower services at the premises. The Court granted Atlantic’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint in its entirety holding that the contractual indemnification provision relied upon by the owner was unenforceable under General Obligations Law §5-322.1 because it was overly broad and required indemnification even where the owner’s own negligence may have contributed to the accident. The Court further dismissed the owner’s claims for common law indemnification and contribution, finding that such claims were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law §11, as the plaintiff did not sustain a “grave injury” within the meaning of the statute. The Court also dismissed the breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance, concluding that the record did not support a viable claim against Atlantic. As a result of the Court’s decision, Atlantic was dismissed from the action.

Robert Olecki v. BP 399 Park Avenue, LLC, et al., Index No. 159112/2021 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Feb. 9, 2026)

We are pleased to announce that Courtney B. Feldman has rejoined the Firm as a Partner.

We are pleased to announce that Susan B. Eisner has become a Partner of the Firm.

Congratulations to Tom Hall who obtained a directed verdict after a three-week liability trial in Nassau County Supreme Court.

The case involved a union electrical lineman who was burned while working on live overhead power lines for a local utility company when he accidentally crossed phases causing an arc flash. FCH’s client, the energy service company which employed the plaintiff, was impleaded by the utility. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, Tom joined in the motion for a directed verdict made by counsel for the utility. The trial court granted the motion concluding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case on any of his causes of action including common law negligence and violation of Labor Law §§200 and 241(6).

Congratulations to firm partners Joanne Blair and Mike Fabiani on recently securing two favorable verdicts for FCH clients at trial.

Joanne recently tried a premises liability case in Bronx County Supreme Court where the plaintiff had made a multimillion dollar demand prior to beginning trial. After a hard-fought trial, Joanne obtained a verdict awarding the plaintiff less than 5% of his demand.

Mike recently tried a case in New York County arising out of a construction site accident. Not only did Mike obtain a verdict for less than 25% of the plaintiff’s last demand, but he also successfully convinced the jury that the plaintiff was 40% at fault, reducing the total verdict to less than 15% of the plaintiff’s demand.

Great work Mike and Joanne!

First Department Affirms Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint Finding That Defendants Were Not Liable For A Dangerous Condition Plaintiff Was Hired to Remedy

In a unanimous decision dated October 9, 2025, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law §§200 and 241(6) and for common law negligence against our clients, Downtown NYC Owner, LLC, Clarion Partners, LLC, Murray Hill Properties LLC and MHP Real Estate Services LLC.  The plaintiff claimed that he tripped on debris, specifically discarded tiles, while he was pushing a cart of the tiles and other debris.  The defendants were able to show that the debris he allegedly tripped on was the very same debris he was hired to clean up.  The plaintiff unsuccessfully argued that the act of pushing the cart and the actual cleanup of the debris were two separate jobs.  However, this argument was rebutted by the defendants who showed that plaintiff’s employer, and the plaintiff specifically, were hired to clean up the debris and, as such, could not hold the defendants liable for any dangerous condition the plaintiff was hired to remedy.   

Luis Murillo v. Downtown NYC Owner, LLC et al., – N.Y.S.3d –, 2025 WL 2857067, 2025 N.Y. Slip. Op. 05574 (1st Dep’t 2025)

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Labor Law §240(1) Claim, Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff’s Labor Law §200 and Negligence Claims and Grants Defendants Contractual Indemnity Against Plaintiff’s Employer in Construction Accident Case Involving a Fall From a Scaffold

In a decision dated October 8, 2025, Hon. Karen Lin of Queens County Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim, granted our clients Archstone Builders LLC, 460 Rollover Sub LLC, and 460 W34 Owner LLC’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law §200 and common law negligence claims and granted our clients’ motion for contractual indemnity against plaintiff’s employer, Metro R Services Inc. The defendants, 460 Rollover Sub LLC, and 460 W34 Owner LLC, owned the premises and contracted with Archstone as the general contractor to provide certain construction and renovation work at the premises. Archstone subcontracted with plaintiff’s employer, Metro, to perform façade repair work. In his capacity as a non-union mason, the plaintiff claims that while he was kneeling down on the platform of a scaffold accepting a bucket of materials from a co-worker on the ground, the guardrail of the scaffold broke, causing him to fall to the ground below. The Court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted our clients’ motion in its entirety. The Court also denied Metro’s motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint and the third-party complaint. In denying plaintiff’s motion, the Court found issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff should have been tied off and whether plaintiff had knowledge that his co-worker removed the guardrail post pin in order to facilitate the work. With regard to our clients’ indemnity motion, the Court found a clear and enforceable indemnification provision in the Archstone/Metro purchase order.

Jorge Tiniganay v. Archstone Builders LLC et al., Index 711681/2020 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co., Oct. 8, 2025)

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Labor Law §240(1) Claim and Grants Defendants Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff’s Labor Law §§240 and 241(6) Claims Where Sanitation Truck Driver Was Struck By a Falling Wooden Pallet

In a decision dated October 8, 2025, Hon. Dakota Ramseur of New York County Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claims and granted our clients MIP One Wall Street Acquisition LLC and J.T. Magen & Co. Inc.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6) claims. MIP One Wall Street owned the premises and contracted with J.T. Magen as the general contractor to provide certain construction and renovation work at the premises. J.T. Magen subcontracted with non-party Independence Carting Inc., a sanitation company that employed the plaintiff, to remove waste and debris from the premises.  In his capacity as a sanitation truck driver, the plaintiff claims that he was struck by a falling wooden pallet, which had been positioned at the edge of an elevated platform, as he was collecting debris from a loading dock at the premises. The Court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted our clients’ motion in its entirety. The Court found that, as a sanitation truck driver, the plaintiff was not on the premises to perform construction work and he was therefore not within the class of workers protected by the Labor Law because the work he was performing at the time of the alleged accident was not an enumerated activity which was protected under either Labor Law §§240(1) or 241(6). Even assuming, as the plaintiff maintained, that he was responsible for loading debris and construction material onto the truck, in addition to driving the truck to the loading dock, the Court found that none of that work could be considered ancillary to the enumerated activities – erection, demolition, repairing – so as to fall within the ambit of the statutes.

Krysztof Lapinski v. MIP One Wall Street Acquisition LLC et al., Index 150585/2022 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co., Oct. 8, 2025)