Pilapanta v. Hudson 888 et al v. USA Interiors et al

CFO Legal > Pilapanta v. Hudson 888 et al v. USA Interiors et al

Brief Description of Case:

Plaintiff brought suit seeking Labor Law § 240(1), § 241(6) and § 200/common law negligence recovery for personal injuries allegedly sustained when he fell from a ladder while performing construction work upon a large mixed-use retail and residential project on the west side of Manhattan. Our client, USA Interiors LLC – a subcontractor to perform drywall and carpentry work – was not a proper Labor Law statutory defendant. Nevertheless, as the building owner asserted common-law and contractual indemnification claims against USA, we had standing to oppose plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Labor Law § 240(1) liability, as any judgment rendered against the property owner would ultimately be ‘passed through’ to our client.

Court or Jury’s Decision and Reasoning:

Plaintiff argued that he was protected by Labor Law §240(1) because the ladder upon which plaintiff was standing and performing his work was inadequately secured, and, as such, failed to provide the necessary protection to plaintiff from the elevation-related hazard of his work. Our office argued that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of proof, as: (1) plaintiff’s own testimony indicated that the ladder was stable before he stepped onto it; (2) plaintiff was the sole witness of his accident; and (3) plaintiff gave hospital personnel a different account as to the cause of his accident. We also cited to case law supporting our additional argument that plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder ‘moved’ was insufficient to establish, as a matter of law, that a purported failure to secure the ladder was a substantial factor in causing his injuries.

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion, reasoning that the plaintiff did not meet his prima facie burden of proof as: (1) the manner in which plaintiff’s alleged accident occurred was within his exclusive knowledge; and (2) the only evidence submitted in support of his motion was his own deposition testimony. Thus, the court ruled, the defendants must be afforded the opportunity to subject plaintiff’s testimony to cross-examination and to have his credibility determined by a trier of fact.

The Best Possible Defense

Attorneys:

Summary Judgment Motion was Drafted by Michael Reagan

Party We Represent:

Third Party Defendant, USA Interiors, LLC

Venue:

Supreme Court, New York County

Date:

September 2024