Firm News

Appellate Division, First Department Affirms Dismissal of Action Against Condominium

In a unanimous decision dated March 31, 2016, the New York State Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s Labor Law §241(6) claim against our clients, 165 West End Avenue Condominium and 165 West End Avenue Owners Corp. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when a screw struck his eye while he was replacing window balances within a cooperative apartment unit. In affirming the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint, the Court held that because plaintiff was not performing work in the context of construction, demolition or excavation, his Labor Law §241(6) claim was properly dismissed.

Bautista v. 165 West End Avenue Associates, L.P. et al., 137 A.D.3d 714, 27 N.Y.S.3d 384 (1st Dep’t 2016)

Court Grants Defendant Summary Judgment in Construction Accident Case

In a decision dated February 10, 2016, Justice Donna M. Mills granted the summary judgment motion of our client, the Metropolitan Transit Authority Capital Construction Company, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while working on a project involving the extension of the #7 New York City subway train tunnel. The plaintiff alleged that he was struck in the head by a bag of steel plates that had been thrown down a ventilation shaft. In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court found that the defendant’s evidence sufficiently established that it was neither the owner, agent of the owner nor the general contractor of the project so as to entitlement to dismissal of plaintiff’s Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action as it was not proper labor law defendant.

Elefante v. JF Shera Construction, Inc. et al., Index No. 104367/2011 (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct., Feb. 10, 2016)

Stephen M. Cohen and Thomas J. Hall lectured at a seminar for The Related Companies entitled “Best Practices for Accident Investigations,” in New York, New York.

Court Grants Defendant Summary Judgment in Bicycle Accident Case

In a decision dated March 25, 2016, Justice James E. d’Auguste granted the summary judgment motion of our client, Restani Construction Corp., dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety as against Restani, prior to any depositions being conducted. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when she fell from her bicycle due to a pothole while riding on Third Avenue at its intersection with 92nd Street, New York, New York. The plaintiff alleged that Restani had been negligent in milling the subject roadway prior to the City’s repaving of the roadway, causing a the alleged defective condition. In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court found that Restani submitted sufficient evidence in admissible form indicating that it completed milling work at the subject area approximately 29 months prior to the plaintiff’s alleged accident, that the City of New York signed off on Restani’s work approximately 18 months prior to the plaintiff’s alleged accident, and that the City of New York thereafter repaved the roadway. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that further discovery was needed, or that the motion was premature, as plaintiff failed to identify anything to show that further disclosure from Restani would lead to relevant evidence on the issue of its liability.

Murray v. City of New York et al., Index No. 157124/2014 (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct., March 25, 2016)

Thomas J. Hall Wins Directed Verdict in Contractual Indemnity Case

This was an action for personal injuries arising out of an accident involving the plaintiff, a journeymen steamfitter employed by FL Mechanical, which occurred on September 30, 2010, when he fell from an extension ladder while working on a pipe in the ceiling at a project involving the retail fit out of an Aeropostale store in the building known as 1515 Broadway, New York, New York. The building is owned by 1515 Broadway and managed by SL Green. Structure Tone was the general contractor for the Aeropostale project. The plaintiffs sued Structure Tone, 1515 Broadway and SL Green. Structure Tone in turn impleaded React Industries asserting claims for common law contribution and/or indemnification, contractual indemnification and breach of contract for the failure to procure insurance. Structure Tone and SL Green subsequently brought a second third-party action against our client, FRP Sheet Metal Contracting Corp., sounding in common law contribution and indemnity, contractual indemnification and breach of contract for the failure to procure insurance. At the close of discovery the plaintiff was granted summary judgment against Structure Tone and 1515 Broadway under Labor Law 240(1). Those parties subsequently settled with the plaintiff for $3,625,000 and then went to trial to prosecute their remaining third-party claims against FRP and two other subcontractors. At the close of evidence, the court granted FRP a directed verdict finding that Structure Tone failed to prove its entitlement to contractual indemnity against FRP.

Scekic v. SL Green Realty Corp. et al., Index No. 113386/10 (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct., Feb. 22, 2016)

Stephen M. Cohen lectured at a seminar for Yonkers Contracting Co. entitled “Overview of New York Labor Law and Industrial Code,” in Yonkers, New York.

John V. Fabiani, Jr. Wins Defense Verdict in Construction Accident Case

This was an action for personal injuries arising out of an accident involving the plaintiff, a union-affiliated ironworker, who reported to a construction site at the St. George’s Ferry Terminal, in Staten Island, New York. His employer and our client, Northeast Structural Steel, was hired as a subcontractor. Another laborer, who was performing work directly overhead the plaintiff’s work area, was using a hydraulic chipping “helldog” hammer to break concrete off a steel I-beam. When the plaintiff arrived at the job site, he was instructed by the general contractor to stay away from the work area until the chipping work was completed. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff and a co-worker were allegedly told that it was safe to return to his work area near bus ramp C. When the plaintiff returned to his work area, he was struck on the head by a 200 lb. piece of concrete that fell from above. The plaintiff was propelled forward and hit a steel column before falling on the ground.  The plaintiff sued the premises’ owner, the New York City Department of Transportation. He also sued the construction project’s general contractor, Conti of New York LLC. He claimed the defendants violated the New York State Labor Law. Subsequently, the NYCDOT and Conti filed a counter claim against the plaintiff’s employer, Northeast. At trial, the plaintiff’s counsel ultimately discontinued the claims against the NYCDOT. The plaintiff’s counsel contended that the defendants violated various Industrial Code Rules.  They contended that the violations established that the defendants failed to provide or ensure reasonable and adequate protection, as required by Labor Law §241(6). The plaintiff’s counsel alleged that the defendants violated Labor Law §200, which defines general workplace-safety requirements and Labor Law §240(1), which outlines the general safety procedures required to prevent elevation-related hazards. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants failed to secure the premises from falling objects and did not provide the appropriate protective materials, such as netting or planking, above his work area to prevent falling objects from injuring workers below. Plaintiff’s counsel alleged that the defendants should have had an inspection procedure in place to determine whether there were unsecured pieces of concrete at the work site. The defendants contended that the work that was being performed did not constitute demolition work, as defined by Labor Law §200. The defense also claimed that it was not required to inspect the job site for unsecured concrete. Defense counsel argued that the incident was a “freak accident” and that the defendants were not provided notice or warning of the condition/accident. The jury determined that Conti was 100% liable for the accident and that the plaintiff’s employer and our client, Northeast, was not liable.

Gorman v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Transp. et al., Index No. 150326/13 (Richmond Co. Sup. Co., March 14, 2016)

John V. Fabiani, Jr. and Marc M. Mahoney lectured at a seminar for Chubb Insurance entitled “The Art of Effective Risk Transfer,” in Jersey City, New Jersey.

Stephen M. Cohen and Thomas J. Hall lectured at a seminar for TF Cornerstone entitled “Best Practices for Accident Investigations,” in New York, New York.

Court Grants Defendants Summary Judgment Dismissing All Claims As a Matter of Law

In a decision dated November 25, 2015, Justice Larry D. Martin granted the summary motion of our clients, Hill International, Inc., Lemley International Inc., Liro Engineers, Inc. and Daniel Frankfurt Engineers & Architects/HDR Inc., A Joint Venture dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.  The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained while working on a project involving the extension of the #7 New York City subway train tunnel. The plaintiff alleged that he fell from a stack of blasting masts while he was in the process of descending same. In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court found that the defendants’ evidence that they were not agents of the MTA and neither instructed nor supervised plaintiff’s work was sufficient to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, dismissing plaintiff’s causes of action for common law negligence and violation of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6).

Lamar v. Hill, Int’l, Inc. et al., Index No. 19723/2011 (Kings Co. Sup. Ct., Nov. 25, 2015)