Source: https://hocd.com/lawyer/Recent-Decisions_cp20321.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 23:02:20+00:00

Document:
In Trotman v. Verizon Communications, Inc., we were successful in defending plaintiff’s appeal of the Court’s grant of summary judgment to our client, Verizon Communications. In this case, the plaintiff, Lincoln Trotman was a fleet mechanic employed by a non-party, P.M. Saavy, which contracted with Verizon to repair their vehicles. Plaintiff was in the process of working on a vehicle whose beacon strobe light was not functioning. The light was located on top of the van and while climbing onto the hood of the van to access the roof in order to replace the light bulbs, plaintiff lost his footing and fell to the ground sustaining injuries. Plaintiff commenced an action against Verizon claiming a violation of Labor Law §§240(1), 200 and negligence. In upholding the lower Court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant, Verizon, the Appellate Division Second Department found that plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance done outside the context of construction work and therefore Labor Law §240(1) was not applicable. Plaintiff attempted to argue that the accident occurred in the context of a larger project which encompassed activity protected under the statute. Plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law §200 and negligence were also dismissed as defendant did not control the manner and method of the work.
In Igneri v. Triumph Construction, we successfully defended plaintiff’s appeal from an order of the Supreme Court which granted summary judgment to our clients, Keyspan Energy Corporation and the Brooklyn Union Gas Company d/b/a National Grid NY. Plaintiff tripped and fell as the result of a hole in the surface of a crosswalk at the intersection of Joralemon Street and Court Street in Brooklyn. The lower court granted summary judgment to our client, who demonstrated that they did not perform any work at the location as well as the other defendants, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division Second Department finding that plaintiff had not rebutted defendants’ prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment. Plaintiff attempted to argue that defendants needed to demonstrate which entity had actually performed the work as opposed to just demonstrating that they had not performed work in the area.
Congratulations to our Appellate Counsel, Anton Piotroski for a successful appeal in the case of Bailey v. Vitrano, et al. In this appeal at issue was the negligence of our clients N.C. Vitrano, the operator of a flatbed truck owned by Tariq Auto Service, Inc., which was involved in an accident where plaintiff was operating a box truck in the center lane of the Long Island Expressway behind the defendant/Appellant, Vitrano. Vitrano was caused to apply his brakes due to a vehicle that stopped in front of him as the result of a jack-knifed tractor-trailer in the roadway. Plaintiff in attempting to avoid the Vitrano vehicle steered to the left and crossed over the left lane and the HOV lane where he proceeded to strike the median. Immediately after striking the median, plaintiff’s vehicle was struck by another vehicle being operated by the defendant/respondent, Diane Arutt who was traveling in the HOV lane. Arutt and Vitrano both moved for summary judgment in Supreme Kings with the Court granting Arutt’s motion and denying the motion made on behalf of Vitrano/Tariq. Despite there being a factual issue about whether plaintiff’s vehicle struck the Vitrano vehicle before veering off into the median, the Appellate Division Second Department reversed the lower Court decision and found that our client was not negligent in the happening of this accident. The Court also affirmed the lower Court’s decision that the defendant Arutt was faced with an emergency situation and thus not responsible for the accident.
Congratulations to our partner, Richard Koehler who recently obtained a defense verdict in Kings County Supreme Court in the case of Janet Jamison-Cox v. Citv of New York, et al. In this case, plaintiff claimed that she tripped and fell as the result of a roadway defect that existed across the street from her home on Waverly Avenue in Brooklyn causing her to sustain a bimalleolar fracture which resulted in an ORIF surgical procedure. Plaintiff further claimed that the defect was created by KeySpan/National Grid and that their contractor, New York Paving failed to properly restore the roadway. Plaintiff produced two non-party witnesses who claimed to have observed the utility working in the roadway at the accident location. After cross-examining these witnesses as to their observations and credibility, Mr. Koehler was able to introduce google map photographs which demonstrated that the defect existed in the roadway prior to National Grid performing its work as well as photographs which evidenced gas work occurring on the sidewalk as opposed to the roadway. The Court directed a verdict in favor of our client, New York Paving and the jury rendered a defense verdict in favor of our client KeySpan/National Grid finding that they did not cause the defect at issue.
Congratulations to our appellate counsel, Anton Piotroski who successfully prosecuted an appeal of the denial of summary judgment to defendant in Deitrick v. Long Island Power Authority, et al resulting in a dismissal of plaintiff’s action against our client, KeySpan Gas East Corporation. The case involved claims for personal injuries and property damage resulting from a gas explosion that occurred during Hurricane Sandy when a tree uprooted in the front yard of plaintiff’s neighbor's house disturbing the natural gas service line. Gas escaped from the line and accumulated in the neighbor's house causing an explosion sending debris flying into plaintiff's house next door causing injuries and property damage. The Appellate Division Second Department reversed the lower Court's denial of summary judgment finding that defendant/appellant had made a prima facie showing that it was not negligent in the installation and maintenance of the gas line and that plaintiff/respondent had not raised a triable issue of fact.

References: v. 
 §240
 §200
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.