Published on:

Appellate Court Denies Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Finding Issues of Fact Exist


The plaintiffs in this case are John and Laura White. There are numerous defendants in this case including third party plaintiffs and defendants. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County.

The main issue in the case involves the personal injuries that John White allegedly sustained when he stepped on a piece of concrete debris when he was working at a construction site located at 67 Wall Street. Defendants are moving for summary judgment to dismiss the claims made against them.

Undisputed Facts of the Case

These facts are relevant to the case and undisputed by RBNB who was the owner of the premises at the time of the accident and by NB Developers who was the general contractor of the site at the time of the accident.

By a contract that was dated the first of December, 2004, RBNB as the owner of the property hired Newmark Construction Services as the construction manager for the project that was to be conducted in this location. In turn NB developers hired Skyline as a subcontractor for the installation of windows at the subject property. Skyline then hired GJD/3-D to install the windows at the site. The plaintiff was employed by GJD/3-D.

On the 11th of January, 2006, the plaintiff was unloading windows and placing them against columns in preparation for the windows to be installed. The plaintiff testified that he stepped on something, which was concrete. He states that his foot started to wobble and the concrete was under the arch of his right foot. He states that his foot gave out and he felt a sharp pain, he then fell down. The concrete that caused the fall was an irregular shape and grayish in color. It was around two or three inches long and about an inch and a half high. The parties dispute the origin of the concrete that caused the accident.

Case Discussion and Determinations

The defendants have motioned for summary judgment to have the complaints against them dismissed. In order for summary judgment to be granted the defendants must prove in admissible form evidence that establishes this judgment is warranted as a matter of law.

The question in this case is what caused the debris to be in the place that it was. In the case of a construction worksite there is reasonable evidence that there is going to be some type of debris in the area while the construction is being conducted. However, the area should be cleared of debris on a regular basis. If the area is not cleaned, the company that drops the debris can be considered as negligent.

When reviewing the facts that have been provided by the various defendants as well as the plaintiff the court issues the following orders: The motion made by the defendant Skyline for summary judgment is denied, the cross motions made by the plaintiff for summary judgment is denied, the cross motion made by defendant Newmark for summary judgment is denied.

The court finds that there are triable issues of fact regarding this issue resulting in no summary judgments being granted.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers free legal consultations when you visit our office for the first time. If you have any type of legal matter that you are a part of contact one of our offices located in New York City. One of our experienced lawyers will be happy to discuss your case with you and help you determine the best possible solution.

Posted in:
Published on:

Comments are closed.

Contact Information