Category: Firm News

DSB successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a construction company in a Supreme Court, Nassau County labor law action. DSB’s client was sued directly by the plaintiff under the New York Labor Law and was also separately sued by a heavy equipment rental company for defense and indemnity under an equipment rental agreement.

The Plaintiff was picking up the rented equipment at the end of the rental and sustained orthopedic and head injuries when the equipment fell off a truck. The Court held that the plaintiff was not a member of the protected class of workers under the Labor Law and dismissed those claims. The Court also held that the rental agreement had ended by the time the accident occurred and that the accident did not arise out of that agreement.

In a labor law case in which a Plaintiff was injured while on a ladder, DSB successfully moved for summary judgment in Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law section 240 and 200 claims. Plaintiff claimed that he injured his eye and back while on a ladder removing debris and fireproofing. Plaintiff testified that he was using a ladder at the time of the accident but that the ladder did not move or shift and that the ladder was not in any way defective. The evidence showed that plaintiff was injured when a brush on a grinder contacted his eye, causing injury. With the Labor Law sections 240 and 200 claims dismissed, the only remaining claim is based on Labor Law section 241(6), which allows the defense of comparative negligence. This is significant in that plaintiff also admitted to using eye protection at the time of the accident.

DSB Partner, Justin Rowe, obtained a defense verdict on a New York County Labor Law 240 claim. The case was tried because the court, on a motion for summary judgment, found that there were questions of fact as to whether the accident occurred and whether Labor Law 240 was violated. During trial, plaintiff claimed he fell from an A-Frame ladder while reaching around a piece of furniture while painting. DSB produced witnesses to show that there was no A-frame ladder on site, there was no furniture similar to plaintiff’s description, and that the unwitnessed accident never occurred. We also argued that there was a platform ladder available to plaintiff, which all experts agreed was safe, but plaintiff chose not to use it. The jury returned the verdict in a little over an hour finding that the accident did not occur.

DSB obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against the client under Labor Law 200, 240, and 241. Plaintiff alleged that he fell from a ladder that was defective because one of the legs of the ladder was bent. We were able to show the Labor Law did not apply to the client as she was entitled to the homeowner’s exception. However, we also needed to show that the client was not negligent in providing the professional roofer a defective ladder, which we accomplished through careful questioning of what plaintiff observed at each step of his work. Ultimately, we proved that the defect was not present until after the alleged fall, and that nobody had notice of any weakness in the ladder before the accident.

DSB obtained an order granting summary judgment and declaratory relief in favor of a Long Island town on a land use issue. A property owner challenged whether agricultural labor housing was prohibited under the terms of a conservation easement that had been granted in favor of the Town in connection with subdividing a parcel many years ago. The easement prohibited residential structures, but the property owner argued that agricultural labor housing, as part of farm operations and in light of various state and local laws and policies intended to preserve and promote farming, should be considered an agricultural rather than residential structure. After reviewing the language of the specific easement at issue and applicable law, the Court agreed with the Town that, even if accessory to an agricultural use, agricultural labor housing would be a residential structure prohibited by the easement.

On September 16, 2025, DSB obtained summary judgment in favor of a Long Island town, dismissing a selective enforcement claim against it. Following years of summonses for fire safety and other issues at a motel that had been converted into longterm rentals, the landlord sued the Town, accusing it of violating the Equal Protection Clause by engaging in aggressive code enforcement efforts against their property while failing to issue similar violations for other properties where the tenants were not primarily Hispanic. The building burned down while the action was pending, but no-one was injured and Plaintiff argued that this was irrelevant and persisted with the claim. Following discovery, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the case. Among other things, there was no evidence of discrimination, and there was no evidence that the properties that the plaintiff claimed were being treated more favorably had similar pervasive code violations and hazardous conditions.

DSB successfully moved for summary judgment on behalf of a New York City homeowner who claimed to have tripped and fallen on the sidewalk in front of the Manhattan home. Defendants established through the use of an expert surveyor that the sidewalk location involved in the accident was not located in front of their home and as such that they did not owe plaintiff a duty of care to maintain the concrete sidewalk. The Court also held that the defendants did not create the alleged defect, and that there was no special use made.

DSB secured a dismissal for their client in a New York Labor Law case. We represented a third-party defendant, and moved to dismiss all claims seeking indemnity and contribution against the client. Prior to filing a motion to dismiss, the third-party plaintiff failed to provide discovery in the direct action and its answer was eventually struck. We argued that once the third-party answer was struck, all allegations against the direct defendant/third-party defendant are deemed admitted. Those admissions of fault by the third-party defendant vitiated the indemnification agreement and undermined its claims for common law indemnity and contribution, i.e. a third-party plaintiff cannot seek to be indemnified or seek contribution for its own acts of negligence. As such, the Court dismiss the third-party action.

DSB obtained summary judgment in Supreme Court, Kings County, on a New York State Labor Law claim involving an amputation. Plaintiff was injured while moving a metal plate with his coworker who was operating a lift when the plate suddenly dropped onto the plaintiff. DSB represented the owner of the property where the accident occurred, and argued successfully that plaintiff was not a member of the protected class of workers covered by the Labor Law, and that he was performing routine maintenance in the yard.

DSB succeeded in obtaining summary judgment in Supreme Court, Queens County, dismissing all third-party claims in a Labor Law construction accident case. Third-party plaintiff/general contractor filed contractual and common law claims against our client seeking reimbursement and attorney’s fees. The general contractor claimed that the accident occurred when plaintiff fell while standing on a gangbox allegedly owned by our client. The Court noted that the evidence that plaintiff was standing on the gangbox was speculative and not based on any first-hand knowledge, despite a statement in the accident report. Further, the court found the evidence showed plaintiff fell from a ladder onto the gangbox. We also established that there was no evidence that the gangbox was owned by the client, and even assuming it was, the client was not a proper Labor Law defendant and did not create a dangerous condition. Finally, we established that the accident did not arise from our work, and therefore, the indemnity clause was not triggered.