COVID-19 Notice: The Perecman Firm has returned to in-person operation in accordance with safety regulations set by New York State and CDC health officials. Our attorneys will continue to provide top-notch legal representation and are available to discuss your case in person, over the phone, via email or video.

Result: $3.4 Million Settlement for Worker Injured in Fall From Scaffold

The Perecman Firm secured a $3,400,000 settlement for a worker who was injured when he fell through a collapsed floor.

The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C. represented a client who sustained fracture, spinous process, herniated disc at C5-6, herniated disc at L5-s1, post-traumatic stress disorder, cognition, impairment, post-concussion syndrome, depression, fracture, vertebra, vertebrectomy, discectomy, fusion, cervical, fusion, lumbar, pins / rods / screws, fracture, C5, concussion, anxiety, memory and impairment after falling through a collapsed floor.

On May 20, 2008, our client, a laborer, worked at a demolition site. The premises' second floor collapsed while the plaintiff was walking on it, and the plaintiff fell onto the first floor. The plaintiff sustained injuries of his back, his head and his neck.

The plaintiff sued the premises' owner. The plaintiff alleged that the premises’ owner violated the New York State Labor Law.

The plaintiff’s counsel claimed that the building's structural integrity was badly damaged by work that was being performed at the time of the accident. Witnesses reported that a backhoe was being used to dismantle and remove sections of the building alongside the area in which the plaintiff was working, and the plaintiff’s counsel noted that a municipal inspector investigated the accident and immediately issued a full stop-work order that was based on inadequate structural integrity of the building. The plaintiff’s counsel contended that the structure's second floor had not been braced to prevent a collapse and that the plaintiff had not been provided a secure point to which his safety harness could have been attached. He claimed that the incident stemmed from an elevation-related hazard, as defined by Labor Law 240(1), and that the plaintiff was not provided the proper, safe equipment that is a requirement of the statute.

Defense counsel contended that the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of debris falling onto him after the floor had collapsed and that such an accident did not constitute an elevation-related accident, as defined by Labor Law 240(1).

The plaintiff’s counsel moved for summary judgment of liability, and the motion was granted. The matter proceeded to damages.

  • Best Lawyers "Lawyer of the Year" 2022
  • Best Lawyers in America©, 2008-2022
  • U.S. News' Best Law Firms in America, 2011-2022
  • TopVerdict™
  • TopVerdict™
  • Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch
  • Super Lawyers® Top 100, 2019-2021
  • Super Lawyers®, 2007-2021
  • New York Law Journal's "Top Verdicts in New York"
  • New York Magazine' s Legal Leaders 2021
  • Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum®
  • The National Trial Lawyers
  • 10 Best Law Firms
  • Avvo 10.0 Rating
  • Lawyers of Distinction
  • National Academy of Personal Injury Attorneys Top 10
  • Top 10 Personal Injury Law Firms

When You Call Us

  • We have a stellar record of success in accident cases.
  • We are premier trial lawyers and smart litigators.
  • We are highly respected in the legal community.
  • We make you our top priority.
  • We have over 40 years of proven legal experience under our belts.

No Fees 

  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.