Construction Practice

Gordon & Silber defends owners, construction managers, general contractors and various trade contractors against personal injury claims involving violations of Sections 240(1), 241(6) and 200 of the New York Labor Law, and construction defect claims.

  • The firm also defends construction property damage claims.
  • G&S attorneys are experts in enforcing contractual indemnity and insurance procurement requirements.
  • G&S obtained a dismissal on behalf of a steel erector in a construction defect claim that subsequently went to verdict against the remaining contractors and resulted in a $16,000,000.00 verdict.

Read articles about Construction Practice on our blog.

G & S Gets Dismissal of Construction Labor Law Claims in Foot Crush Case
Read Full Story
CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION – LABOR LAW
APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 767 NYS2D 832

Plaintiff allegedly injured his back at a construction project affixing steel beams when he ran out of bolts. He ascended to obtain a large bucket of new bolts and then tied a rope to the wire handle and proceeded to lower the 80-90 lb. bucket off the edge of the open deck floor, to where he was working, when he was injured when he lost control of the rope. Plaintiff asserted various claims pursuant to the New York Labor Law, including sections §240(1), 200 and §241(6). The lower court granted our motion for summary judgment and dismissed all the Labor Law claims. The lower court found, among other things, that TA \s “§240(1)” \c 0TA \s “§240(1)” \c 0§240(1) was not applicable because “the accident involved neither a falling object nor a fall by plaintiff as those terms are defined by the statute.” We argued to the appellate court that the load was completely within plaintiff’s own control and hence not a “hazard” from which he had to be protected, since he could easily could have split the load into two buckets and lowered both of them, one at a time. The trial court’s decision was affirmed. The Court found that “while the injured plaintiff’s back injury was tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon the bucket of steel bolts he was lowering, it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law “§240(1)”.