Skip to Content
In an article published on 10/21 in the New York Law Journal, Segal McCambridge Shareholder Carla Varriale-Barker and Senior Associate Jeffrey Marchese discuss various aspects of construction accidents in New York and the legal implications, particularly focusing on summary judgment motions. Varriale-Barker and Marchese highlight the importance of obtaining detailed evidence and testimony to effectively prosecute or defend these cases.
The authors cite several recent New York cases pertaining to construction litigation and the application of various Sections of the Labor Law. Among the lessons to be gleaned from these cases, Varriale-Barker and Marchese advise taking detailed depositions of the Plaintiff, questioning any type of inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s story, determining whether the materials or equipment were in good condition when the alleged incident occurred, and obtaining information as to whether the Plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity when the alleged accident occurred.
“Attorneys, claim professionals, and construction contractors should be conscious of the evidence and testimony that the Courts look at in determining whether particular sections of the Labor Law have been violated or are inapplicable,” write Varriale-Barker and Marchese. “Each inconsistency elicited during a deposition can help poke holes in the Plaintiff’s story, which may create a triable issue of fact to defeat a summary judgment motion.”
The authors write that it is important for attorneys, contractors, and claims professionals to be cognizant of issues surrounding accidents, including slip-and-falls, falling objects, or falls from a ladder.
“The Appellate Division Decisions help shed some light on when certain Labor Law Sections may apply to construction accidents and when certain sections may not apply,” the authors write. “The Decisions also underscore the importance of thorough investigations, depositions, contemporaneous testimony, and document discovery, which may help a party support or defend against a summary judgment motion.”
Read the story in full; click here (subscriber-based).
