Results

In a wrongful death action alleging violations of Labor Law, §240(1), §241(6) and §200/Common Law negligence, the plaintiff, an elevator mechanic, was killed when a brick struck him from above in the courtyard of the building. The building was undergoing two separate construction projects at the time: one consisting of exterior façade work; with the second being an elevator restoration project.

Our client, hired by the general contractor to perform the elevator restoration work, subcontracted with plaintiff’s employer to perform certain work. The accident, resulting in plaintiff’s death, occurred while he was disposing of debris created by his work in the rear courtyard of the building, with no overhead protection, he was struck by a brick.

Our client was initially brought in as a third-party defendant by the property owner and general contractor who asserted claims against our client for contractual and common-law indemnification. Plaintiff then asserted direct claims against our client for negligence and violation of the Labor Law.

In our dispositive motion, we sought the dismissal of all claims against our client on the grounds that: 1) our client did not have direction and control over the injury-producing work and was, thus, not subject to liability under the Labor Law; 2) our client was not negligent in that it did not owe a duty to instruct plaintiff where to dispose of debris or direct him not to enter the outside courtyard and; 3) the contractual indemnification clause was triggered, as the accident was not “caused by” our client’s work but rather caused by the brick façade work. The court agreed with our arguments and dismissed all claims against our client as a matter of law.

Plaintiff was otherwise granted liability against the other defendants under Labor Law §240.

(New York County; January 2024)

Homeowner’s Association granted summary judgment based on lack of ownership, control, and maintenance of private sidewalk plaintiff alleged to have tripped over. Plaintiff was walking out of his basement apartment rented from homeowner who was a member of Homeowner’s Association which is part of a 21 home private development in Staten Island, New York. Homeowner commenced third-party action against HOA, as well as plaintiff bringing direct claims against HOA. Through the submission of deposition testimony, HOA bylaws, subsequent repair invoices, and a land survey it was successfully shown that the HOA’s maintenance responsibilities did not extent to this private sidewalk in front of the residential home.

(Supreme Court, Richmond County, May 2017)

In a two-car motor vehicle accident plaintiff sustained serious injuries claiming that our client’s truck sideswiped her vehicle while it was stopped. With thorough investigation during the discovery process, including tracking down uninvolved non-party witnesses, and Mr. Bhavnani’s effective trial strategy and questioning, the Queens County jury found the evidence proved that our client was in the process of making a turn on to a side street when it was the plaintiff’s vehicle that struck the right rear of his truck. Case dismissed, and another defense verdict for another happy client.
(Supreme Court, Queens County November 2021)

Anthony Pagliuca receives a defense verdict for our property owner client. In a premises liability case, Plaintiff testified that that she tripped and fell over a defective cellar door located on the sidewalk adjacent to a bike store, suffering tri-malleolar fracture requiring open reduction internal fixation surgery. She claimed the doors were defective as they were mis levelled, and flexed downward too much when stepped on. She brought suit against our client, the owner of the adjacent property, and our client’s tenant, which operated the bike store. After the case was dismissed on summary judgment but reversed on appeal, we proceeded with a jury trial. Prior to trial, the demand was $750,000 against an offer of $50,000.

After establishing by cross examination of plaintiff that the area was well lit, that she saw the doors well before reaching them, saw no defect as she approached, and did not feel the doors deflect down when she stepped on them, we then elicited testimony from both our client and the co-defendant tenant that each was at the property daily, each went by the doors daily, and neither ever observed any defect, nor received any violation or complaint about the doors. During deliberation, the jury was provided the documentary evidence in the case, including photos of the accident location and a report by our expert engineer detailing an inspection of the doors, where he found a 1/16 inch gap at rest, and a maximum downward deflection of 1/16 inch when 300 psf was applied to the doors.

The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict for both defendants within an hour, finding neither defendant was negligent.

(Nassau County, Supreme Court, April 2023)

We obtained a defense verdict following a 10 -day trial in the Bronx in a premises liability case. Our client operated a grocery store in the Parkchester section of the Bronx. Plaintiff, a customer, tripped and fell over a weather mat. The incident was caught on video. Though plaintiff prevailed on the issue of liability, with the jury finding our client negligent, we prevailed on our causation defenses. Plaintiff, 55 at the time, claims to have sustained medial meniscal tears that required arthroscopic surgery. Plaintiff’s surgeon testified that would need a total right knee replacement as a result. Through cross-examination of plaintiff and her doctors and surgeon, the post-accident films, and expert testimony from a Radiologist, we showed that plaintiff’s knee condition was -pre-existing and not caused by the accident. The jury agreed and found the fall was not the proximate cause of plaintiff’s knee injury. Defense Verdict!

(Supreme Court, Bronx County, September 2023)

Plaintiff claimed that he was injured at a construction site in Brooklyn, New York. The owner and construction manager commenced a declaratory judgment action against our insurance company client seeking additional insured status based upon an oral agreement with the named insured (plaintiff’s employer). The motion court granted summary judgment to the owner and construction manager.

On appeal, the Appellate Court accepted our argument that the policy language requiring that the agreement be “executed” excluded the possibility of an oral agreement triggering the additional insured endorsement. Only a written contract would satisfy the policy requirement that the agreement be “executed”. (Appellate Division, Second Department, November 2010).

The Kings County motion court denied our motion for summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claims. The court found that there were questions of fact concerning the applicability of three Industrial Code provisions that plaintiff alleged our client violated. On appeal, we obtained a reversal of that portion of the lower Court decision which denied our motion for summary dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law §241(6) cause of action.(Appellate Division, Second Dept., September 2010)