Our Results

Plaintiff Denied Summary Judgment under Labor Law §240(1) When Ladder Detached from Wall. Clients Granted Contractual Indemnifi

Plaintiff, an employee of a demolition subcontractor, fell while descending a ladder suspended from a roof hatch during a demolition project. The ladder became detached from the wall causing plaintiff to fall from the ladder, along with the ladder itself striking the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s employer was hired by our clients, the owner and property manager.

The Court denied plaintiff’s motion for liability under Labor Law §240(1) finding a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was authorized to perform the work at the time it occurred. In addition, our clients were awarded contractual indemnification over and against plaintiff’s employer. The Court held that our client proved it was free from negligence, and did not direct, control, or supervise the injury-producing work. (Supreme Court, Kings County- September 2019)

Claims against Supermarket Dismissed in Shopping Cart Strike Case

Plaintiff was struck by a shopping cart allegedly pushed by our client’s Supermarket employee. Plaintiff sustained a knee tear with surgery as a result. Through discovery we established that the person pushing the shopping cart, as described by plaintiff at his deposition, did not match the description of any of our client’s employees at the time. The Court granted our motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case entirely. (Supreme Court, Kings County- July 2019)

Plaintiff’s Award of Summary Judgment on Liability Overturned on Appeal

The Appellate Division, First Department reversed the decision of the Bronx County Supreme Court that granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on liability in this motor vehicle action. The Appellate Division agreed with our argument that there were unresolved factual inconsistencies that raised triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred, required a trial.

Plaintiff, a health care aide, was a back-seat passenger in our client’s ambulette. He was accompanying his wheelchair-bound patient to a doctor’s appointment. He claims that our client drove at an excessive speed, causing him to fall from his seat which was equipped with no seatbelt, and caused the wheelchair to tip backwards onto him. In stark contrast, our ambulette driver testified that he secured the wheelchair to the floor of the ambulette with four hooks attached to tie-downs. He also made sure plaintiff fastened his seatbelt.

The Appellate Court found that we adequately rebutted plaintiff’s negligence claims, thereby warranting the denial of plaintiff’s motion. (Appellate Division, First Department- May 2019)