Results

While working on motorized windows, plaintiff, an electrical contractor, fell from an 8-foot A-frame ladder that he was unable to fully open and lock allegedly due to items/materials crowding work space. We represent plaintiff’s employer, a third-party defendant in an action against the owner and general contractor wherein violations of Labor Law §240(1), §241(6); and §200 were alleged. Through detailed discovery, depositions of all parties and non-party witnesses, and the use of a ladder expert, we successfully argued that it was plaintiff’s own actions that were sole proximate cause of his fall. We proved that the ladder was otherwise defect free, multiple other height ladders were available to him, and that he was not forced to work in such area and could have waited for, or requested, the materials be moved. Plaintiff sustained lumbar vertebra factures and underwent a one -level lumbar fusion with a revision surgery to that fusion years later, never returning to employment. (Supreme Court, Suffolk County)

We obtained a dismissal of all claims against our client, an Alabama-based supplier of hoisting materials, for lack of jurisdiction in New York. Our client sold a polyester sling (used to secure hoisted materials) to a customer in Connecticut in 2008. Later, the Connecticut supplier sold the sling to a hoisting company in New York. In 2015, the sling was used to hoist a large HVAC unit into the 38th floor of a building in Manhattan. The sling allegedly failed, causing the HVAC unit to fall, causing extensive damage to the building, and allegedly injuring multiple people below.

Multiple parties sued our client in New York, alleging negligent manufacturing. In addition to our defense that the sling was cut due to the sole negligence of the lifting contractor who failed to properly protect the sling from the bottom sharp edge of the HVAC unit, we argued our client was not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. Our client made just two unrelated sales in New York, and could not reasonably anticipate that selling a sling to Connecticut in 2008 would cause harm in New York. The parties argued that our occasional attendance of trade shows and sending out a newsletter to New York, along with sales to neighboring states, was sufficient. While the trial court denied our motion, the Appellate Division agreed that our client was not subject to jurisdiction in New York and dismissed all claims against our client for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Appellate Division, First Department)

We obtained dismissal all claims against our client, elevator installation and repair contractor, in a wrongful death action. Plaintiff, an employee of our client’s subcontractor, was struck in the head and killed by a brick that fell from the façade of the building undergoing construction.

The parties alleged that the courtyard where the accident occurred was to be off limits, and that our client, a direct defendant, was at fault for allowing the plaintiff to bring construction debris through the courtyard. We successfully argued on behalf of our client that even if edict to not use the courtyard was put in place, plaintiff’s presence in the courtyard was, at most, the occasion for the accident, and not the proximate cause. All claims against our client dismissed! (Supreme Court, New York County)

In this “damages-only” trial in Kings County Supreme Court, a cyclist was struck by our client’s driver’s side door when he opened it into the bike lane, allegedly resulting in severe injuries to plaintiff’s head, shoulder, leg, and hand, including traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cognitive deficits.

The jury agreed with our arguments at trial, and found that plaintiff suffered, at most, a minor non-permanent injury. Despite asking for millions, the jury awarded plaintiff just $20,000 for pain and suffering; $0 for future pain and suffering; and $6,500 for one year of future medical costs.

Post-trial, plaintiff’s counsel moved to set aside the verdict as being too low. We opposed, arguing the award for pain and suffering was more than fair and should remain intact, and cross-moved to reduce the award for future medical expenses to zero, arguing it was against the weight of the evidence. Plaintiff’s motion was denied, and our motion was granted. Plaintiff’s award for future medical expenses was reduced to zero. (Supreme Court, Kings County)

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)

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)

The Appellate Division, Second Department upheld the lower Court’s dismissal of Labor Law §240(1), §241(6), and §200 claims against our client. Plaintiff was hit by a falling pipe. Our office represented an entity that was offered the General Contractor position, filed the permit as the General Contractor, but was never granted the job. We prevailed on motion arguing that our client never exercised the requisite supervision and control required to trigger liability under the statutes. Plaintiff argued that our witness was lying and alleged that one of our employees, who happened to work for a subcontractor on the job, proved this. The Court affirmed the dismissal and found that plaintiff’s assertion that our witness was lying was insufficient to raise an issue of fact. (Appellate Division, Second Department)

Plaintiff, a demolition worker, claimed serious back injuries resulting in surgery as a result of a fall while working on a large ramp with heavy debris containers. Plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §240(1) and §200 against our client Through use of co-worker testimony and plaintiff’s statements at the scene, we established in our dispositive motion that the owner and general contractor were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court confirmed that the Scaffold Law was not violated on account of no real evidence of a significant elevation accident, and confirmed that the site safety law (section 200) was not violated on account of the fact that there no evidence of a dangerous condition inherent in the property itself, and on account of evidence showing our clients exercised nothing more than general supervisory authority over the injury-producing work. Motion Granted! (Supreme Court, Queens County)

Plaintiff (48) claimed to have sustained a permanent traumatic brain injury and cervical herniations that resulted in cervical laminectomy and fusion surgery when a ceiling collapsed in her bathroom. We represented the defendant, Bronx building owner, and argued that the case was a total exaggeration – from the description of the incident to the claimed injuries, none of which were sustained in the incident. Through aggressive cross-examination of plaintiff’s doctors and witnesses and through the testimony we attacked causation. We established that plaintiff did not sustain trauma to her head, neck, or back, and that there was no objective evidence of any head or brain injury whatsoever. Plaintiff’s claimed neck and back injuries were the result of pre-existing, degenerative conditions throughout her spine.

In the end, while the jury found our client was negligent, it agreed that our client's negligence was not a cause of plaintiff's claimed injuries. The Bronx jury returned a defense verdict on causation! (Supreme Court, Bronx County)