Our Results

Defense Verdict at Trial on Labor Law §240(1)

Plaintiff, a 48-year-old welder, claimed he was working on a five-foot scaffold when it shook and caused him to fall to the ground. He claimed severe and permanent injuries to his back and both knees – rendering him permanently incapacitated from any type of work. He underwent three knee surgeries, multiple spinal injections and was recommended for future lumbar fusion surgery. Plaintiff brought claims against our clients, the owner and general contractor, under Labor Law § 240(1) on the ground that the scaffold was unsafe, did not have railings and failed to provide him proper protection. At trial, through the use of party and non-party testimony, photographs, and project plans, we established that the scaffold was not five feet tall and did not require railings under the circumstances. We also attacked plaintiff’s credibility with different versions of the accident that he had reported to his Supervisor and medical providers within weeks after the alleged incident. The jury returned a Defense Verdict finding no violation of Labor Law § 240(1)!

(Supreme Court, New York County, June 2022)

Trip and Fall Case Dismissed Against Client, Town

Plaintiff was injured when she stepped in a hole in a road while jogging. The road is owned and maintained by our municipal client (“Town”). The plaintiff claimed the hole was the result of a prior negligent repair. Plaintiff further argued the Town had prior written notice of the hole through a telephone complaint that was reduced to writing by the Town six weeks prior to the accident. On motion, we established that while repairs were made more than two years before the accident, there were no recent repairs that resulted in an immediate hazard as required to hold the Town responsible for negligently creating the condition. We also established through case law that making note of a telephone complaint does not satisfy the prior written notice requirement to maintain suit against the Town. In its decision on our motion, the court found that the Town did not create the hole and did not have prior written notice of it, and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint against our client as a matter of law.

(Supreme Court, Suffolk County, January 2022)

Another Defense Verdict for Ajay Bhavnani!

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)

Labor Law Claims Dismissed Against Plumbing Subcontractor

Plaintiff fell when he stepped on a cinder block with his right foot which then became entangled in electrical extension cords causing him to fall at a home renovation project in Queens. Plaintiff sustained a fractured cervical vertebra and a fracture hip, necessitating a total right hip replacement.

Upon completion of all depositions, we moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability showing the Court our client, a plumbing subcontractor, was not the general contractor; did not supervise, control, or direct the plaintiff’s work; did not place or use any of the electric cords or subject cinderblock. The Court granted our motion dismissed all claims and cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification against our client.

(October 2021 Supreme Court, Queens County)

Big Win for the Defense Bar! – Trial Verdict Dismissing Labor Law §240(1) Claim Affirmed on Appeal!

Plaintiff, a 44 year-old construction worker, was rolling a 1000 lb. steel I-beam on the ground using a long “make-shift” pry-bar. The steel I-beam rolled back, causing the bar to snap out of plaintiff’s hands and strike him in the face and head. He sustained fractured orbital bones in his face that required open reduction and internal fixation, traumatic brain injury with cognitive deficits and memory loss, neck injuries for which he underwent cervical discectomy and fusion at C3-4, and back injuries for which he had a double laminectomy and fusion at L3-4 and L4-5. Plaintiff claimed he was permanently disabled from employment and sought past and future lost wages in the amount of $1.5 million; past medical expenses of $550,000, and; future medical expenses in the amount $3 million.

Our involvement in this case began when the insurance carrier for the defendant site owner called upon us for a second opinion after former counsel recommended tendering the policy limits to settle the case. We opined that Labor Law §240(1) was not triggered under these facts, and the case was transferred to our firm to defend at trial.

The jury trial was held before Judge Robert J. McDonald in Supreme Queens. At the close of the plaintiff’s case, our firm moved for a directed verdict. We argued that §240(1) contemplated vertical motion and to allow this case to proceed under §240(1) would wrongly expand the findings of Runner and Wilinski and further undermine the purpose of Labor Law §240(1). After hearing from both sides, Judge McDonald agreed, granted our motion and dismissed plaintiff’s case as a matter of law. Plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, by unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the directed verdict agreeing that the case did not involve the kind of elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law §240(1). The court found that plaintiff and the steel beam he was rotating were both at ground level and did not call for the use of the protective devices mentioned in the statute. This case presents a shining example of the CK Difference! (Appellate Division, Second Department September 2020).