New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: February 28, 2025

Worker Injured After Fall from Ladder Recovered Under Labor Law § 240(1). Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03558 (1st Dept.)

by Stephen Bilkis

The Appellate Division, First Department, decided the case of Dibrino v. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. on July 2, 2024. The case involved a construction worker who fell from a ladder on a commercial job site in Manhattan. The key question was whether the defendants violated New York Labor Law § 240(1), which requires owners and contractors to provide safety devices that protect workers from elevation-related risks.

Background Facts

Plaintiff Dominick Dibrino worked for a subcontractor named Jacobson & Company, which handled drywall and ceiling installation. The project took place on the fifth floor of a commercial property located at 1271 Avenue of the Americas. Rockefeller Center North, Inc. owned the property, and JRM Construction Management LLC served as the general contractor. JRM hired DAL Electrical Corporation as the electrical subcontractor.

Published on: February 24, 2025

Summary Judgment Granted for Plaintiff After Construction Site Fatality. Kosta v. WDF, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 51306(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings County 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Kosta v. WDF, Inc., the Supreme Court of Kings County considered liability for a construction site fatality at the Owl’s Head Water Treatment Plant in Brooklyn. The plaintiff, acting as administrator of the estates of Gennaro and Donna Montello, sought damages for injuries and wrongful death caused by the collapse of a conveyor system. The court analyzed claims under Labor Law § 200, common law negligence, and other related causes of action.

Background Facts
The accident occurred during a construction project at the Owl’s Head Water Treatment Plant, owned by the City of New York. WDF, Inc. was the general contractor and was required to install temporary conveyors to move waste during construction. The conveyors, purchased from Serpentix Conveyor Corporation, were designed to be bolted to the floor. At the request of a City supervisor, the conveyors were modified by adding wheels, making them mobile.

WDF contacted J. Blanco Associates, Inc. to fabricate and provide caster wheels. The modified conveyors were installed in July 2008. On August 27, 2008, Serpentix notified WDF that the warranty on the conveyors was void due to the modifications and warned that the conveyors needed additional supports. WDF did not install the supports.

Published on: February 19, 2025

Ladder Fall Caused by Worker’s Own Actions Did Not Support Labor Law § 240(1) Claim Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services, N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280 (2003)

by Stephen Bilkis

In Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services, N.Y. City, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a worker injured while using a ladder could recover under Labor Law § 240(1) when the ladder provided proper protection and the worker’s own actions were the only cause of the fall. This case clarified the limits of liability under the statute and reaffirmed that not every fall from a ladder results in an automatic finding of liability. The court focused on whether the defendant violated the statute and whether that violation caused the injury.

Background Facts

Rupert Blake owned a contracting company and was hired to perform renovation work at a two-family home in the Bronx. The homeowner had received financing from Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City (NHS), a nonprofit lender. NHS provided a work estimate and a list of possible contractors. The homeowner selected Blake, and NHS had no further involvement in directing the work.

Published on: February 13, 2025

Court Dismissed Case After Plaintiff Gave Wrong Date in Notice of Claim Garland v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991

by Stephen Bilkis

In Garland v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 01991, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed whether a lawsuit could go forward when the plaintiff gave the wrong date of the alleged injury in the required notice of claim. The case involved a person who said she was hurt while trying to get on a city bus.

Background Facts

Theresa Garland claimed that she was injured while boarding a bus. She said the fall happened on June 13, 2015. However, when she filed her notice of claim—a document that must be submitted before suing a city agency—she wrote that the injury occurred on June 9, 2015.

Published on: February 3, 2025

Court Ordered MTA Bus Company to Provide GPS Data in Injury Case Smith-Percival v MTA Bus Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 06000

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of Smith-Percival v MTA Bus Co., 2024 NY Slip Op 06000, focused on whether certain discovery requests should be enforced in a personal injury lawsuit. While the claim centered on an injury suffered by a passenger, the legal issue before the Appellate Division, Second Department, was about the production of GPS and route records. These documents could provide facts needed to prepare for trial and determine whether the defendants contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. The court’s ruling addressed what information must be shared and how far a defendant must go to comply with discovery in a personal injury case involving public transportation.

Background Facts

On December 22, 2017, Merlene Smith-Percival was riding on a bus operated by the MTA Bus Company when the bus came into contact with a vehicle belonging to the New York City Police Department. Smith-Percival claimed that she was injured during the incident.

Published on: January 22, 2025

False arrest claim based on complaint by estranged spouse. Masciello v. Inc. Vill. of Lloyd Harbor, 140 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action to recover damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution, the plaintiff in Masciello v. Inc. Vill. of Lloyd Harbor, 140 A.D.3d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) challenged an order from the New York Supreme Court that granted summary judgment to the defendants—the Incorporated Village of Lloyd Harbor, its police department, and two officers—dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint.

In New York, false arrest and malicious prosecution are legal claims that individuals can bring against law enforcement or other parties. False arrest occurs when someone is detained without legal justification. To prove false arrest, the plaintiff must show that they were intentionally confined without consent and that the confinement was not otherwise privileged. The key defense against a false arrest claim is the existence of probable cause, which justifies the arrest.

Malicious prosecution involves pursuing a legal action against someone without probable cause and with malice. For a malicious prosecution claim, the plaintiff must establish four elements: the initiation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant, the proceeding terminated in favor of the plaintiff, the absence of probable cause for the proceeding, and actual malice. Probable cause serves as a complete defense to both false arrest and malicious prosecution claims.

Published on: December 27, 2024

Court allowed late claims against Suffolk County for well water contamination linked to airport operations. Brooks v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 177 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case involving claims of water contamination, the Supreme Court of Suffolk County faced the question of whether to grant a late notice of claim against a public entity. This case centered on residents whose well water was allegedly contaminated due to the County of Suffolk’s operation of Gabreski Airport. The petitioners sought permission to file late notices of claim after learning about the contamination. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioners, allowing them to proceed.

Background Facts

The petitioners were property owners in areas near Gabreski Airport, operated by Suffolk County. On July 22, 2016, the County released a notice warning residents about potential contamination in private wells. The contamination involved toxic chemicals, specifically perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which were reportedly linked to firefighting foam used at the airport.

Published on: December 23, 2024

Court allowed late notice of claim after trip-and-fall injury at school due to timely knowledge. Messick v. Greenwood Lake Union Free Sch. Dist., 84 N.Y.S.3d 215 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)

by Stephen Bilkis

In a legal dispute involving a trip-and-fall incident at Greenwood Lake Middle School, a petitioner sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the school district. The issue centered on whether the delay in filing caused prejudice to the school district and if the petitioner had demonstrated sufficient grounds to justify the late notice. The case provides important insights into the standards courts apply in evaluating late notices of claim under Education Law § 3813 and General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).

Background Facts

The petitioner’s claim stemmed from an incident on December 6, 2015, when she attended her grandson’s basketball game at Greenwood Lake Middle School. While exiting the school, she tripped over unsecured floor mats in the vestibule at the main entrance. The fall caused a displaced fracture in her left femur, requiring hip replacement surgery and additional procedures to address the injury.

Published on: December 18, 2024

Petition to file late notice of claim against NYC denied due to insufficient evidence. Lobos v. City of New York, 219 A.D.3d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

by Stephen Bilkis

The case arose from injuries sustained during a car accident allegedly caused by a high-speed police chase. The incident occurred on April 1, 2021. The petitioners were injured in a car accident when their vehicle was struck by a Mercedes that ran a red light. According to the petitioners, the Mercedes was being pursued by NYPD officers in a high-speed chase at the time of the collision. The petitioners were hospitalized following the accident.

While recovering, the petitioners claimed that an unidentified individual affiliated with the NYPD’s “internal affairs” told them about the police chase. They filed a petition on October 21, 2021, to serve a late notice of claim against the City of New York, alleging that the City’s negligence during the police pursuit contributed to their injuries. Along with their petition, they submitted affidavits and a police report. The petitioners argued that the City had actual knowledge of the incident and would not be prejudiced by the late filing.

Question Before the Court

Published on: December 16, 2024

Court allowed late claims against Suffolk County for water contamination linked to airport chemicals. Brooks v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 177 A.D.3d 969 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

by Stephen Bilkis

In cases involving claims against public entities in New York, adhering to procedural requirements is critical. The case involving petitioners who sought to file late notices of claim against Suffolk County highlights these requirements. The petitioners alleged contamination of their drinking water due to chemicals originating from firefighting foam used at a county-owned facility. The central issue before the court was whether the petitioners should be permitted to file late notices of claim against Suffolk County under General Municipal Law § 50-e(5).

Background Facts

In July 2016, Suffolk County issued a news release advising property owners near the Gabreski Airport in Southampton that their private wells might be contaminated with toxic chemicals, including PFOS and PFOA. These chemicals were linked to firefighting foam used at the airport, which was owned and operated by the county.