New York City Construction Accident Lawyers

We won summary judgment under the Scaffold Law, Labor Law § 240(1), for an electrician who suffered severe injuries to his foot and ankle, requiring multiple surgeries, and a spinal fracture when the A-frame ladder he was using tipped over and fell while he was attempting to retrieve a tool from a scaffold. The plaintiff brought suit against the owner of the building, the general contractor, and Xavier High School, which had contracted for the work for its new building. The court rejected the defendants’ arguments that the plaintiff should have used a vertical ladder built into the side of the scaffold.

We won summary judgment, reversing the decision of the trial judge below, for a union drywall taper who slipped on ice, injuring his knee and requiring a total knee replacement. The court held that the City of New York and general contractor Tishman Technologies Corporation were liable for causing Potenzo’s accident under Labor Law § 241(6) for a violation of the New York State Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) because they failed to clear snow and ice from the walkway where Potenzo slipped in between the guard booth and the building. This walkway was generally used by the workers entering the construction site from the parking lot. A site safety report for the date of the accident stated that Tishman Technologies Corporation’s Site Safety Rep. had “advised the super to clear the workers walkway of ice and snow and add salt.” The defendants argued that this area was not a walkway under the regulation, but that argument was rejected by the court.

We won summary judgment under the Scaffold Law, Labor Law § 240(1), for a carpenter who suffered a fractured leg and spinal injuries, requiring multiple surgeries, when he fell from a ladder while attempting to paint a wall. The court found that, because the ladder wobbled and caused him to lose his balance and fall, the defendants had not provided him proper safety devices under the statute. The court rejected any arguments by the defendant owner of the building that Ciborowski had slipped or whether his own actions caused the ladder to move because there was no evidence to support those arguments. They also rejected the opinion by the defendant’s expert who never examined the ladder as speculative.

We won summary judgment for a carpenter who suffered an electric shock when attempting to install pins in a drop ceiling using a Hilti gun. The court found in favor of Haynes even though the owner of the company Haynes worked for testified that he came to the scene after the accident and there was no exposed wiring or anything unusual. The court made this decision that the plaintiff still wins a summary judgment based on violations of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR §§ 23-1.13(b)(3) and (4) because the owner of the company didn’t arrive at the site until 20 to 30 minutes after the accident and Haynes’ testimony and an affidavit from Haynes’ supervisor indicated that exposed uncapped electrical wiring was seen hanging from the ceiling in the area Haynes was working. Haynes’ coworker also stated that after the accident he observed electricians arriving at the site and capping exposed wiring.

The court reversed the ruling of the trial court below, and we won summary judgment for a union-affiliated painter who slipped or fell off an elevated loading dock when attempting to enter the building to perform his work at a construction/renovation project only taking place on certain floors higher up in the building. In a split decision, the court ruled in favor of Hoyos, taking into account “the reality of what construction workers employed on projects in high rise buildings face.” The court found that Hoyos was working at the time, even though he was still trying to enter the building, and that the loading dock was considered part of the construction/renovation site because Hoyos was required to “line up with other construction personnel and use the crowded, elevated loading dock to gain access to the building at the start of each work day” and Hoyos was “not provided with a safer or different means of gaining access to any other part of the building.” Furthermore, the court found that the loading dock was high enough off the ground to trigger the safety protections of the law and that it “was several feet off the floor [and] it had no railing, chain, demarcation or other protective safety device to prevent someone on the crowded platform from falling off its edge …”

We won summary judgment for a union laborer who had a cinderblock fall on his knee while he was making an opening in a concrete wall for HVAC ductwork to be installed. The court found that “the cinderblocks above the opening that fell were ‘falling objects’ under Labor Law § 240(1) required to be secured for the purposes of the undertaking.” The court said that O’Brien v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 29 N.Y.3d 27 (2017), another case from The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C., was inapplicable here because the defendants did not provide any safety device to secure the cinderblocks, as opposed to in O’Brien, where there was a question of whether the safety device provided was adequate. This case resulted in a settlement of $1,200,000.

We won summary judgment for a laborer who fell to the ground and suffered knee injuries when climbing the cross braces of a sidewalk bridge, as he was instructed to do. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Cardona because he was not provided with a ladder or other safety device to access the sidewalk bridge in violation of Labor Law 240(1). The defendants did not present sufficient evidence that Cardona was instructed not to go up on the sidewalk bridge. The Employer’s Injury and Illness Report was not accepted as evidence for the defendants as their own witness denied preparing it and there was no proof that it was “prepared by anyone with personal knowledge of the relevant events.” The defendants tried to argue that Cardona fell because of his “carelessness,” “bad decisions,” and his size, but these arguments were not accepted as comparative negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law 240(1) claim. This case was later settled for $4,200,000.

We won summary judgment for a worker who fell and suffered brain injuries when climbing down a 28-foot ladder after installing satellite cable equipment on the roof of a home. The court ruled in favor of Pacheco because the ladder was unsecured, and he was not provided with a safety device to prevent him from falling. The defendants tried to argue that Pacheco should lose because he used a 28-foot ladder instead of a 40-foot ladder, but they failed because they did not show that there were 40-foot ladders available for him to use. The case was settled for a confidential sum.

We won summary judgment for a union worker who fell from a scaffold that was not properly secured and lacked guard rails. Even though a witness from the general contractor testified to a different version of the accident, Jerdonek still won because Labor Law 240(1) “was violated under either version of the accident.” This was especially because the general contractor testified that the first level of the scaffolding did not have middle or top guard rails. The court held that Jerdonek was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) claim against the owner of the building and the board of managers of the condominium building. This case was settled after trial for $1,140,890.80.

We won liability under Labor Law §240(1) for our client, a plumber, who was injured when he fell from a ladder that had become wet and slippery from water leaking from an overhead sprinkler system that was being dismantled. This case was settled for $600,000.

We won liability under the Scaffold Law for our client, who was using a sawzall to remove 10-foot-high, 8-to-10-foot-wide window frames, when the top half of the window fell out of the wall and crushed his hand. The court said that Mr. Czajkowski was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) claim because he “was not provided any safety device to brace or otherwise support the window while it was being removed in the manner he was instructed.” This case was settled for $700,000.

Our client, a union carpenter working on a form wall at the World Trade Center construction site, was awarded liability under the Scaffold Law when a brace that he had secured his lanyard to gave way, causing him to fall 14 feet to the floor below. The Port Authority’s witness also admitted that our client had not been given double lanyards, as had been required. This case was settled for $4,750,000.

We won liability for our client under Labor Law 241(6) after our client was severely injured when using a miter saw that did not have a protective guard and a vise clamp in violation of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(2) and 23-9.2(a). This case was settled for $1,000,000.

The court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client, who fell approximately 15 feet from an unsecured straight ladder that shifted to the side while he was doing electrical work in a New York City school auditorium. The court said that Mr. Grant still wins even though the City of New York argued that he should have had a coworker hold the bottom of the ladder or use a nylon rope to secure the bottom of the ladder to a stationary object. This case was settled for $1,850,000.

The court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client, a union crane operator, who fell 13 feet from a vertical fixed ladder while climbing down from the cab of a crane because the ladder “proved inadequate to shield [him] from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person.” The court ruled in favor of our client because that ladder was the only means by which he could reach his elevated work site and his injuries were “at least partially attributable to defendants’ failure to take mandated safety measures to protect him from elevation-relation risks.” This case was settled for $6,000,000.

The court ruled in favor of our client, a union carpenter, under the Scaffold Law, who fell 12 feet as he attempted to climb down from the top of a scaffold by climbing down the frame because the ladder that was supposed to be attached to the scaffold was not provided. This case was settled for $9,900,000 and was the top New York construction accident settlement in 2014 in as per the VerdictSearch Top Settlements list.

This is a very significant case where the court applied the Scaffold Law to rule in favor of our client, who had his foot crushed by an 8,000-pound block that was moving slightly from side to side while it was being hoisted for a load test. Although the client did not fall from a ladder or scaffold, the more typical case under the Scaffold Law, the court held that “the elevation differential [between the block and our client’s foot] cannot be considered de minimis when the weight of the object being hoisted is capable of generating an extreme amount of force, even though it only traveled a short distance.” This case went to trial and was settled after trial for $7,250,000.

The First Department affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment in favor of our client under Labor Law 240(1), known as New York’s Scaffold Law, in a case where our client, who was working on a suspension scaffold removing paint from the outside of a building, fell seven stories when the ropes holding one side of the suspension scaffold broke. The court rejected the defense argument that the client was solely to blame for not securing his harness, because the scaffold failed and there was “no evidence that plaintiff was given an immediate instruction to use the harness.” We think this case is particularly applicable here because there was a failure to provide a full height railing/parapet, which courts have repeatedly held is a violation of the Labor Law, just as does the failure to provide a scaffold with full railings.

The trial court awarded liability to our client under Labor Law §240(1), in a case where the client, while working on a scaffold installing drywall with a nail gun, fell off the scaffold when it unexpectedly moved because the scaffold lacked side rails.

The trial court awarded liability under Labor Law §240(1) to our client who, while working on a scaffold, fell when part of the scaffold collapsed.

The trial court awarded liability to our client under Labor Law §240(1). Our client fell while climbing down a vertical ladder affixed to an outside wall of a school without having been given a safety harness, and the steps of the ladder were an insufficient distance from the wall thus allowing our client to only place the very front of his feet on the ladder steps.

The trial court awarded liability to our client under Labor Law §240(1), in a case where our client fell from an unbraced and unsecured ladder while using a crowbar to remove forms from a ceiling at a construction site.

The trial court awarded liability to our client under Labor Law §240(1), in a case where the client fell from an unsecured extension ladder that ran at an angle between a floor below and a concrete deck being built above.

The trial court awarded liability to our client under Labor Law §240(1), as a result of our client having been injured when, while working on a ladder removing sheet rock from the ceiling of a building, an entire sheet of sheetrock that was wet from a leak fell on him and the ladder, causing him to fall from the ladder.

The trial court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client, who while painting crown molding at a school fell from a closed A-frame ladder that slid out from the bottom.

The trial court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client, who fell from an unsecured open A-frame ladder that moved while our client was working from it.

The trial court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client, who fell from an unsecured ladder he was working on when a heavy steel form he was removing from a column came loose and struck him and the ladder.

The court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client, who fell approximately 15 feet from an unsecured straight ladder while doing electrical work in a New York City school auditorium.

The trial court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client, who fell from an open A-frame ladder that shook and moved while our client was working from it in a bathroom.

The trial court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client who, while working on the roof of the defendant’s building, fell through a skylight opening that had not been properly covered.

The trial court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client, who fell from a fixed vertical ladder while trying to open a door that provided access to the building’s elevator repair room.

The trial court awarded summary judgment to our client under Labor Law §240(1), in a case where our client was injured when, while walking down a wooden ramp that ran from a lift platform to the floor below, one of the ramp’s planks collapsed because it was not properly secured to the ramp.

The trial court granted summary judgment under the Scaffold Law to our client who, while laying bricks on an exterior wall of a building, was injured when the scaffold he was working on came free from the wall that it was attached to because it had been improperly secured.

The court ruled in favor of our client under the Scaffold Law, where the client, a pipefitter, fell from a scaffold when one of the scaffold wheels slipped into a hole in the floor at the construction site.

The trial court awarded liability to our client under Labor Law §240(1), in a case where the client was injured when, while working at ceiling height on a straight aluminum ladder, the ladder slid out at the bottom, causing the client to fall to the ground.

The trial court awarded liability to our client under Labor Law §240(1), where the client, while working on an A-frame ladder installing pipes into a hanger suspended from the ceiling, was injured when the ladder broke and collapsed.

The court ruled in favor of our client under the Scaffold Law, where the scaffold he was using to access the bulkhead located on the building’s roof had insufficient planks on it for him to stand on. No other safety devices were provided to prevent or protect him from falling.

The trial court awarded liability to our client under Labor Law §240(1), where the client fell 10 to 12 feet from a sidewalk bridge he was working on when one of the plywood side panels of the sidewalk bridge broke free.

Another important case where the court ruled in favor of our client, who was injured while attempting to realign a side panel of a sidewalk bridge he and his coworkers were constructing. The court stated that “the failure to provide [our client] with any safety device to protect him against the risk of a fall created by his need to lean over the side of the bridge to nail in the side panels leads to liability” under the Scaffold Law, and further specifically ruled that a co-worker is not a safety device under the Scaffold Law.

The court awarded liability under the Scaffold Law to our client, who fell from an unsecured ladder that slid out from under him.

Our client was a sheet metal worker who was injured when he fell from an unsecured ladder. The court ruled our client was entitled to a liability finding in his favor because “the failure to supply [him] with a properly secured ladder or any safety devices was a proximate cause of his fall.”

The plaintiff was “chipping concrete” as part of a repair of a train trestle located at the Huguenot station in Staten Island. A gust of wind caused by the passing of a nearby train caused a tarp to exert pressure against the plaintiff’s ladder. The ladder moved away from the wall on which it had been propped, and this movement prompted the plaintiff to release his grasp and fall.