Call us : (212) 482-0001

Contact us
  • Email the firm
Russo & Gould LLP LOGO
  • About Us
  • Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
    • Alcohol and Beverage Law
    • Child Victims Act & Sexual Misconduct Coverage & Defense
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Construction Accident Liability
    • Criminal Defense Practice
    • Employment Litigation
    • Environmental Complex Tort Litigation
    • First Party Benefits Defense
    • General Property and Casualty Liability
    • Insurance Coverage Litigation
    • Life, Health and Disability Litigation
    • Medical Malpractice / Nursing Home Defense
    • Product Liability
    • Professional Liability/ E&O/ D&O
    • Transportation Liability- Personal and Commercial Auto
  • News
    • News
    • Recent Decisions
    • Archived News
  • Careers
  • Locations
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Russo & Gould News
  • Steven Dyki Prevails On Labor Law Summary Judgment Motion In Queens County

News Details

Steven Dyki Prevails On Labor Law Summary Judgment Motion In Queens County

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

On October 11, 2017, Steven Dyki prevailed on a motion for summary judgment in Calle v. 1411 IC-SIC Property LLC, Index No. 704429/2013 (Supreme Court, Queens County). The plaintiff claimed that during the course of demolishing a ceiling, a beam fell onto him causing severe injuries. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his claim for violation of Labor Law section 240(1) arguing that he was not provided with a proper protective device to perform his work. Mr. Dyki moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims of negligence and violation of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6) against the demolition contractor that retained plaintiff’s employer, and argued that: plaintiff willfully refused to follow the instructions of his supervisor to leave the room where the accident occurred; plaintiff was provided with all proper protection but chose not to use it; none of the Industrial Code sections allegedly violated were applicable to the alleged accident; and the defendant did not have notice of any hazardous condition and did not control the injury producing work. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for negligence and violation of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), and found an issue of fact requiring a trial on the claim for violation of Labor Law section 240(1). The Court also found issues of fact regarding the cross-claims for common law and contractual indemnification asserted by the owner against the demolition contractor.

Search

Russo & Gould LLP provides trusted legal counsel and representation on a wide range of civil liability and insurance matters in New York, Buffalo, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

33 Whitehall Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10004

info@russogould.com

(212) 482-0001 (212) 482-0002

 
Terms and Conditions

Copyright © 2025 Russo & Gould LLP


Law firm website design by Business Edge


Attorney Advertising