Firm News

Frank Thompson and Nicholas Vevante Convince the New Jersey Supreme Court to Uphold the Dismissal of the Complaint as to a Developer Involved With the Goethals Bridge Replacement Project

In an Order dated May 5, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court rescinded the granting of certification to the plaintiff for an appeal from the New Jersey Appellate Division effectively upholding the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims as decided by the Appellate Division.  Our client, NY-NJ Link Developer, LLC, entered into an agreement with The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to replace the Goethals Bridge.  NY-NJ Link hired Kiewit-Weeks-Massman for the design and construction of the replacement of the Goethals Bridge.  KWM was the plaintiff’s employer at the time of the accident. The plaintiff was working on the New Jersey side of the Goethals Bridge when the accident occurred.  The plaintiff alleges that he was injured when a co-worker improperly operated an excavator while moving a wooden crane mat, causing the mat to strike the plaintiff in the back.  The plaintiff originally brought claims under both New York and New Jersey law which were dismissed by the motion court and upheld by the Appellate Division.  The plaintiff then filed a Petition for Certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court originally granted the plaintiff’s Petition for Certification, limited to issues of general contractor liability for injuries to a subcontractor’s employees under New Jersey Law.  Essentially, the Supreme Court wanted briefs about whether NY-NJ Link could be held liable for the alleged negligence of its independent subcontractor KWM.  After supplemental briefs submitted to the Supreme Court by our office and oral arguments in front of the Court, the Supreme Court decided to vacate the order stating that it was improvidently granted.  In vacating the order granting certification, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of all claims holding that our client, NY-NJ Link, could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s accident.

Erwin Campoverde v. NY-NJ Link Developer, LLC et al., Index No. A-001174-23 (N.J. Sup. Ct., May 5, 2026)

Supreme Court Grants Defendants’ Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss Complaint in Commercial Lawsuit

In a decision dated May 8, 2026, the Hon. Ralph J. Porzio of Richmond County Supreme Court granted our clients’ pre-answer motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint as a matter of law. In this commercial matter, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to payment of nearly $300,000 in unpaid invoices for work spanning from 2020 to 2023. Rather than engaging in discovery, our firm took an aggressive approach and filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety based on the argument that the contract on which the alleged claim was based was not reduced to writing and was, therefore, unenforceable under the statute of frauds. We also argued that the plaintiff could not rely on a claim for quantum meruit to circumvent the statute of frauds. The plaintiff also improperly included numerous individual defendants, including one defendant who was deceased when the lawsuit was commenced, and another who was merely an employee of the corporate defendant and undertook no separate obligation to pay the invoices. Ultimately, the Judge agreed with all of our arguments and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, with prejudice, as to all defendants.

Rocco’s Landscaping and Concrete Service LLC v. Baron Hirsch Cemtery Association Inc., et al., Index No. 150663/2026 (Sup. Ct. Richmond Co., May 8, 2026)

Congratulations to Craig Mauro who obtained a favorable settlement for our client following a trial on liability in Kings County Supreme Court.

Our firm recently achieved a favorable settlement in a Kings County Supreme Court construction accident lawsuit involving a claim pursuant to Labor Law §200 and for common-law negligence. Plaintiff alleged serious career-ending injuries. After several days of trial preparation, jury selection, motion practice and testimony, the case resolved for a total of $500,000, of which our client is responsible for $250,000. The settlement is a substantial reduction from plaintiff’s prior demand of $4.5 million.

The defense strategy focused on narrowing the issues for trial, challenging plaintiff’s liability theory, developing key testimony concerning the condition at issue and preserving contractual indemnity and apportionment arguments against the responsible subcontractor. As trial progressed, plaintiff’s demand was reduced significantly, and the case ultimately settled for an amount inclusive of all liens, including workers’ compensation and litigation funding liens.

Kastriot Ndoci et al. v. Trinity Northeast Brooklyn Limited Partnership et al., Index No. 502048/2021(Sup. Ct. Kings Co.)

Supreme Court Grants Summary Judgment On Reargument to Owner, Tenant and Contractor Defendants On Their Third-Party Claims For Contractual Indemnity Against Plaintiff’s Employer

In a decision dated April 16, 2026, the Hon. Ashlee Crawford of Bronx County Supreme Court granted our clients’ motion to reargue and, upon reargument, granted our motion for summary judgment seeking contractual indemnity from the plaintiff’s employer, MC Electrical Construction, Inc. The plaintiff alleges that he was injured on February 27, 2018, when he fell from a ladder that moved while he was running electrical cables in the ceiling while working for the third-party defendant, MC Electrical. We represent the building owner, 96 Springs, LLC, the tenant that contracted for the work Alo, LLC/Color Image Apparel Inc., and the general contractor, Shawmut Woodworking & Supply, Inc. At the conclusion of discovery, we filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s Labor Law §200 and common law negligence claims, for contractual indemnity from the plaintiff’s employer and for dismissal of the third-party defendants’ counterclaims. Upon receipt of our motion papers, the plaintiff withdrew his common law negligence and Labor Law §200 claims. In her original decision, Judge Crawford granted that portion of our motion which sought dismissal of MC Electrical’s counter claims, but denied our motion for contractual indemnity finding that the indemnity provision in the contract required a determination that the accident was caused by MC Electrical Construction, Inc.’s negligence, which had not been established. We moved to reargue the portion of the Order that denied our motion for contractual indemnity arguing that the Court misapprehended the contract by requiring a showing of negligence, when the indemnity provision only required us to show that the accident arose out of MC Electrical’s work and that it was caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of MC Electrical and its employees, including the plaintiff. The Judge agreed with our reading of the contract and granted reargument and, upon reargument, granted our clients summary judgment on their contractual indemnity claim against MC Electrical conditioned only on a finding of liability in favor of the plaintiff..  

Tito Alexander Rojas v. 96 Springs, LLC et al., Index No. 25484/2018E (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co., Apr. 16, 2026)

Court Dismisses Complaint as to Property Owner in Lawsuit Involving a Trip and Fall on Adjacent Sidewalk

In a decision dated March 31, 2026, Hon. Chereé A. Buggs of Queens County Supreme Court granted our client Junction Sports Plus 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 a brick sidewalk on Junction Boulevard in Queens, New York, due to a raised brick. It is alleged that our client, the tenant of the adjacent building, was negligent in failing to maintain/repair the sidewalk. At multiple depositions, the plaintiff testified differently regarding the location of the condition on which she tripped.  In an earlier appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall without engaging in speculation. Our motion for summary judgment was based on that holding being the law of the case. In opposition, nine years after the accident, the plaintiff introduced for the first time an affidavit of her brother who came to the scene after her fall. In the affidavit, the plaintiff’s brother identified the specific height and location of the raised brick on which the plaintiff allegedly tripped. In granting Junction’s motion for summary judgment, the Court found the plaintiff’s attempt to introduce the affidavit was improper at this stage, and after nine motions for summary judgment, the plaintiff had no reasonable explanation as to why the affidavit wasn’t submitted earlier.

Zorayda Hernandez v. 38-09 Junction Realty LLC et al., Index No. 714742/2017 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., Mar. 31, 2026)

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.