eNotes: Liability – February 2025 – New York

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

New York Case Summaries

Echeverria v. Faztec Indus., Inc.
New York Supreme Court, New York County
2025 NYLJ LEXIS 191

Decided: January 17, 2025

Court addresses serious injury threshold requirements of Insurance Law Sections 5104(a) and 5104(d).

Background

Plaintiff Hernandez Echeverria brought an action against Defendants Faztec Industries, Inc., and Francisco Gomez, relating to a motor vehicle accident. Defendants moved for summary judgment on two grounds: (1) Plaintiff is the sole proximate cause of the subject motor vehicle accident, and (2) Plaintiff failed to satisfy the serious injury threshold requirement of Insurance Law § 5104(a), a serious injury being defined in the Insurance Law § 5102(d). Plaintiff claims he was making a right turn when a truck, also making a right turn, hit his car. According to Defendant, he was driving on a one lane street, when Plaintiff’s car squeezed in between his truck and a line of parked cars in an attempt to make the light when the vehicles came in contact.

Section 5104 of the New York Insurance Law states that for causes of action for personal injury, notwithstanding any other law, in any action by or on behalf of a covered person against another covered person for personal injuries arising out of negligence in the use or operation of a motor vehicle, there shall be no right of recovery for non-economic loss, except in the case of a serious injury, or for basic economic loss. As a result of the incident, Plaintiff alleged a right rotator cuff tear with arthroscopic surgery, disc bulges at L4-6, and disc bulges at C3-4.

Holding

The Court denied Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment, finding that Defendants’ submission failed to make out a prima facie case to the effect that Plaintiff did not sustain a significant limitation of use of a body function or system. Any issues regarding other categories of serious injury asserted in Plaintiff’s bill of particulars were academic and it was unnecessary to determine whether Plaintiff’s papers were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on serious injury. In terms of proximate cause, the parties presented competing versions of how the incident transpired. The Court found a material issue of fact as to how the incident occurred. As for the serious injury threshold, in Plaintiff’s medical records, it was noted that Plaintiff sustained significant limitations in range of motion in the lumbar spine (ranges between 30%-40%). The Court found the percentages of decrease in range of motion over a three and a half month period were a significant.

Questions about this case can be directed to Meagan Gabriel at (646) 298-0000 or mgabriel@tthlaw.com.

Jachero v. Babo Constr., Inc.
New York Supreme Court, New York County
2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 165

Decided: January 2, 2025

A mixed result for summary judgment Motions on NY Labor Law claims related to an alleged fall from a height (strict liability under section 240(1), violation of Industrial Codes under Section 241 (6), and negligence claims under the common law and as codified under Section 200.

Background

This case arises from a construction site accident under New York’s Labor Law provisions protecting construction workers. Plaintiff alleged a fall from an unsteady A-frame ladder he was using as provided to him by his employer for ground level work. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking liability findings under all three sections of the labor law. Defendants cross-moved similarly under all three Sections of the labor law, seeking dismissals with prejudice.

The facts revealed Plaintiff had provided contradictory versions of the accident in reports and at the hospital. There were also witnesses contradicting Plaintiff’s version of the events. Labor law Section 240(1) although providing for strict liability for falls from height (including ladders used at ground level) does include a basic requirement that the fall from a height be found to be uncontroverted. As to the alleged industrial code violations, Plaintiff alleged a violation of a general provision concerning ladder safety. Co-Defendants maintained the provision was not specific enough to cover this circumstance and was only a general safety precaution that cannot be used to find liability under Section 241(6). With respect to the general negligence claims, Plaintiff claimed he was supervised and controlled by Co-Defendants. As for Section 200 liability, one Co-Defendant demonstrated a lack of any authority or control over Plaintiff’s work, the other Co-Defendant failed to establish this fact.

Holding

The Court held that as to the causes of action which allege strict liability under the labor law section 240(1), concerning any fall from a height on a construction site, based upon the contradictory versions of the accident, Plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment. However, the Court also found that the Defendants failed to unequivocally establish the existence of no questions of fact. The Court found that a jury could give credit to Plaintiff’s version of events and therefore summary judgment was not appropriate for either party in advance of trial. With respect to the Industrial Code violations which Plaintiff alleged, the Court agreed they are general in nature but more importantly, the Court pointed out that Plaintiff bears the burden of proving their relevance and applicability and in this matter failed to do so. Thus, the Industrial Code violations were dismissed against both Defendants with prejudice. Finally, the Court found that as to general negligence (codified at Labor Law Section 200), the one Co-Defendant established a lack of control or authority over the Plaintiff’s work and therefore cannot be found liable. However, the other Co-Defendant did not establish same, and a jury question remained on that issue against that Defendant.

Questions about this case can be directed to James Cardenas at (908) 574-0504, or jcardenas@tthlaw.com.