Firm News

X

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.

published on March 16, 2016

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

published on March 14, 2016

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.

published on February 05, 2016

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.

published on February 01, 2016

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

published on January 21, 2016

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)

Court Grants Contractor Defendants Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint In Its Entirety

published on December 23, 2015

In a decision dated October 21, 2015, Justice Valerie Brathwaite Nelson granted the summary motion of our clients, ECCO Enterprises LLC and ECCO III, LLC, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.   The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly arising out of a defective roadway while he was a passenger in a motor vehicle traveling on the Van Wyck Expressway.  In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court found that the defendants’ evidence that they did not exist as entities at the time of the accident was sufficient to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Lubin v. ECCO Enterprises, LLC, et. al., Index No. 7469/2014 (Queens Co. Sup. Ct., Oct. 21, 2015)

Court Grants Contractor Defendants Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint In Its Entirety

published on November 20, 2015

In a decision dated October 21, 2015, Justice Valerie Brathwaite Nelson granted the summary motion of our clients, ECCO Enterprises LLC and ECCO III, LLC, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly arising out of a defective roadway while he was a passenger in a motor vehicle traveling on the Van Wyck Expressway. In dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, the Court found that the defendants’ evidence that they did not exist as entities at the time of the accident was sufficient to make a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Lubin v. ECCO Enterprises, LLC, et. al., Index No. 7469/2014 (Queens Co. Sup. Ct., Oct. 21, 2015)

Stephen M. Cohen and Michael P. Tobin lectured at a seminar for Brookfield Properties entitled “Best Practices for Accident Investigations,” in New York, New York.

published on November 17, 2015

Thomas J. Hall and Marc M. Mahoney lectured at a seminar for J. T. Magen & Company Inc. on the topics of “Accident Investigation Reporting” and “Understanding Contractual Risk Transfer,” in New York, New York.

published on November 12, 2015

Court Grants Plaintiff Insurance Companies Summary Judgment On Issue of Liability and Sets Matter Down for Trial on Damages

published on November 04, 2015

On August 5, 2015, the Hon. Anil C. Singh, J.S.C. of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision granting the motion filed on behalf of our clients, New Hampshire Insurance Company, American Home Assurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and National Union Fire Insurance Company for summary judgment on the issue of liability and setting the matter down for a trial on damages. Our clients sought to recover in excess of $3.5 million dollars in premiums earned under insurance policies issued to Fresh Direct Holdings, Inc. Fresh Direct refused to pay the premiums, arguing that the endorsements reflecting the audit premiums were not issued in a timely fashion. Judge Singh held that Fresh Direct was timely notified of the change in premium in accordance with the terms of the policies. Judge Singh determined that our clients established their entitlement to payment by submitting copies of the policies, audit worksheets and the resulting invoices for the policies in question but set the matter down for a trial because minor inconsistencies in the billing records prevented him from ascertaining the amount due as a matter of law. Judge Singh also dismissed all but one of Fresh Direct’s counterclaims accusing AIG of fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract. He found a question of fact as to the merits of Fresh Direct’s counterclaim seeking a $16,000 refund on one of the policies.

New Hampshire Insurance Co. v. Fresh Direct Holdings, Inc., Index No. 651320/10 (N.Y. Co. Sup. Ct., August 5, 2015)

‹ Previous Next ›