Skip to Content
Issues involved with construction accidents in New York are very fact-specific, and it is important to obtain testimony and evidence of all aspects of the construction project to try and defeat a summary judgment motion. Claim professionals and contractors should be conscious of the evidence and testimony that the Courts look at in determining whether particular Labor Law Sections such as 240(1) or 200 have been violated. Recently, the Appellate Divisions of New York have been busy issuing a variety of Decisions pertaining to construction litigation in New York and the application of the Labor Law.
Identify Inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s Testimony to Defeat Summary Judgment
In Simpertegui v. Carlyle House Inc., the plaintiff was injured while working on a construction site. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on a Labor Law Section 240(1) claim. However, the defendants successfully defeated the motion by pointing out inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony, which called into question his credibility and the circumstances of the accident. This case highlights the importance of careful examination of plaintiff's statements in construction accident cases.For example, Plaintiff testified inconsistently about the day that he was allegedly injured, whether he continued working after his alleged accident, and whether he promptly reported his accident. This Decision highlights the importance of taking detailed depositions of the Plaintiff, questioning him on every aspect of his employment and details surrounding the alleged accident to look for any type of inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s story.
Labor Law Section 200 and Common-Law Negligence Claims Held Inapplicable to Subcontractor
In Dibrino v. Rockefeller Ctr. North, the plaintiff was injured while attempting to jump off a wobbling six-foot A-frame ladder. The ladder belonged to an electrical subcontractor, who had not given the plaintiff permission to use it. The court dismissed both Labor Law Section 200 and common-law negligence claims against the subcontractor, finding that it had no duty of care to the plaintiff. This case highlights the importance of determining ownership and permission when using equipment on construction sites. This Decision highlights the importance to obtain evidence by way of testimony and document production in the course of litigation as to who supplied materials and equipment for the project; whether Plaintiff had permission to use them; and whether the materials or equipment were in good condition when the alleged incident occurred.
Labor Law Section 240(1) Held Applicable to Plaintiff Falling Into Ditch
In Sotelo v. TRM Contracting, LP, 212 A.D.3d 488 (1st Dep’t 2023), the Appellate Division, First Department held that the Plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment on the issue of Labor Law Section 240(1) because there were no factual issues as to whether a ditch existed that Plaintiff allegedly fell into at the time of the alleged incident. Plaintiff testified that he fell into a ditch that was covered by a tarp-like material while on his way to the bathroom. The fact that Plaintiff was the only witness to the incident did not preclude summary judgment in his factor, as nothing in the record controverted his account of the accident or called into question his credibility. This Decision also underscores the importance of trying to obtain facts and testimony during litigation to try and call into question Plaintiff’s liability to potentially defeat a summary judgment motion, especially when you are dealing with an unwitnessed incident.
Conclusion
The recent Appellate Division decisions underscore the complexities of construction accident litigation in New York. To effectively defend against summary judgment motions, claim professionals and contractors must gather detailed evidence, identify inconsistencies in plaintiff's testimony, understand the specific requirements of Labor Law Sections 200 and 240(1), and evaluate the role of subcontractors. By following these strategies, they can increase their chances of successfully defending against such claims.
