Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf is a New York Plaintiff's personal injury law firm specializing in automobile accidents, construction accidents, medical malpractice, products liability, police misconduct and all types of New York personal injury litigation.

Articles Posted in Construction Accident

Published on:

By
Howard S. Hershenhorn
Howard S. Hershenhorn
Gair Gair Conason
Steigman Mackauf
Bloom & Rubinowitz

Thomson Reuters, in an article entitled, “Crane collapse trial could be uphill battle for prosecutors” quoted Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf partner, Howard S. Hershenhorn, on the difficulties of prosecuting the 2008 crane collapses in Manhattan that killed nine people.  Hershenhorn, who represented the widow of the crane operator who died in the first collapse, was quoted as saying, “In a criminal case, you’re picking one actor, unless you’re charging a conspiracy. It’s very difficult to find one actor. There are so many factors.”

You can read the rest of the article here.

Published on:

By

In Kempisty v 246 Spring St., LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 00901, Decided on February 9, 2012, New York Appellate Division, First Department, The Court modified the decision of the lower Court dismissing the plaintiff’s 240(1) claim to the extent of reinstating the § 240(1) claim and granting plaintiff summary judgment.

The plaintiff alleged that he suffered a serious injury to his right foot when a steel block being hoisted by a crane improperly swung in his direction. He had been assigned the job of hooking blocks to the crane and acted as the signal man for the crane operator, Leonardo Marino. At his deposition, plaintiff testified that a second before the accident he was standing about two to three feet above the ground on a stack of blocks. Plaintiff further testified that the block that struck him had been vertically lifted about two feet before the accident occurred. Marino also testified that the block in question was vertically lifted about two to three feet. Plaintiff was standing two to three feet off the ground and the block was lifted off the ground approximately two feet when it began to swing. Hence the plaintiff and the block that struck him were at about the same height.

In granting summary judgment The Court held;

Continue reading →
Published on:

By


This presentation is part of the New York State Bar Association Construction Site Accidents seminar 2011. Howard Hershenhorn is a partner at Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf.

Mr. Hershenhorn has extensive experience in high profile personal injury cases in the areas of medical malpractice, automobile accidents, construction accidents, municipal liability and products liability.

Published on:

By

In this New York construction accident the motion by plaintiff’s lawyers for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) claim was granted by The Court in Rich v West 31st St. Assoc., LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 00734, Decided on February 2, 2012, Appellate Division, First Department.

Plaintiff, was injured while riding a hoist at a construction site. The hoist free fell into the sub-basement, coming to rest on the springs on the bottom of the hoist way. In affirming the granting of summary judgment The Court stated;

“The unrefuted evidence establishes that the hoist came to a stop only when it reached the emergency cushion springs located in the sub-basement, an event which does not constitute normal and safe operation of the hoist. The hoist mechanism proved inadequate to shield plaintiff from the harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity and thus summary judgment on plaintiff’s section 240(1) claim was properly granted (see Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 604 [2009]; Williams v 520 Madison Partnership, 38 AD3d 464 [2007]). Although the hoist’s safety mechanism engaged, and prevented plaintiff and his coworkers from suffering more serious injuries, this does not defeat plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment (see Lopez v Boston Props. Inc., 41 AD3d 259 [2007]; Kyle v City of New York, 268 AD2d 192 [2000], lv denied 97 NY2d 608 [2002]). Moreover, neither a lack of certainty as to exactly what preceded the accident nor the fact that plaintiff did not point to a specific defect in the hoist [*2]creates an issue of fact (see Arnaud v 140 Edgecomb LLC, 83 AD3d 507 [2011]).”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In Torres v Our Townhouse, LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 00418 decided on January 24, 2012 The New York Appellate Division, First Department in a one paragraph decision reversed the denial of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action and granted the motion. The Court held;

“Plaintiff was injured when he fell to the ground while descending from a 12-foot-high sidewalk bridge without the use of a ladder or scaffold or any other safety device. Defendants contend that he was provided with a ladder and that his own decision to climb down a nearby tree instead of using the ladder was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, the record fails to support this contention. Even if defendants’ evidence suggested that there might have been a ladder in the chassis under the truck at the work site, no evidence was presented that plaintiff knew where the ladder was or that he knew he was expected to use it and for no good reason chose not to do so (see Gallagher v New York Post, 14 NY3d 83, 88 [2010]; Auriemma v Biltmore Theatre, LLC, 82 AD3d 1, 11 [2011]). “

Published on:

By


In this seminar, Labor Law/Construction Site Accidents in New York, presented by the New York State Bar association on December 9, 2011 Gair discusses section 240(1) cases including Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc. (13 NY3d 599, [2009]), Salazar v.Novalex Contracting Corp., et al., decided by The Court of Appeals on November 21, 2011, 2011 NY Slip Op 8446 and Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp., et al., decided October 25, 2011, 2011 NY Slip Op 7477 among other recent cases and the current trends in the law.

Published on:

By

For more than 25 years Ben Rubinowitz has volunteered his time teaching younger, less experienced lawyers and law students how to try cases. Based on his expertise, Mr. Rubinowitz was asked to Chair the New York State Bar Association Program on Construction Site Accidents. This is an honor bestowed on very few attorneys in the State. In this video, Ben demonstrates cross examination of a construction site foreman in a New York Construction Accident, portrayed by one of his partners, Chris Sallay.

To read the fact pattern upon which this cross examination was based click below.
Continue reading →

Published on:

By

For more than 25 years Ben Rubinowitz has volunteered his time teaching younger, less experienced lawyers and law students how to try cases. Based on his expertise, Mr. Rubinowitz was asked to Chair the New York State Bar Association Program on Construction Site Accidents. This is an honor bestowed on very few attorneys in the State. In this video, Ben demonstrates opening statements in a construction accident case in which a man was injured but both the liability and damage issues were hotly contested by the defense. Although Ben only represents plaintiffs in construction, auto, medical malpractice and products liability cases, in this demonstration, given to more than 100 attendees, Ben delivered the opening statement for both the plaintiff and the defendant. Ben Rubinowitz, a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates, has devoted his entire career to representing those who have been seriously injured through the fault of others

Published on:

By

Christopher L. Sallay, a partner at Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf, lectures on behalf of the New York State Bar Association at the December 2, 2011 CLE Seminar “Construction Site Accidents: The Law and the Trial”. Mr. Sallay discusses the Key Investigation and Case Preparation that must be undertaken by a plaintiff’s attorney in a Construction Accident case in New York. Mr. Sallay is a frequent lecturer for the New York State Bar Association and has been the Assistant Planning Chair for this statewide program for several years.

Mr. Sallay has extensive experience in high profile personal injury cases in the areas of medical malpractice, automobile accidents, construction accidents, municipal liability and products liability. Mr. Sallay is responsible for all aspects of litigation, from the initial meeting of clients through the ultimate resolution of the case and has tried cases in both New York and New Jersey.

Published on:

By

The family of Javier Salinas — the 36-year-old construction worker from Danbury, Connecticut who in October fell more than 50 feet to his death at the Chelsea Piers construction site in New York City — is suing his former employer, the worksite general contractors and the owners of the property where he died.

The dangers inherent to a construction site are well-known and can be prevented if simple, common-sense precautions are in place. Those dangers are particularly well-known where there are elevation-related risks involved. In fact, specific laws have been enacted to protect workers whose job requires them to perform construction activities in areas that are elevated. In this instance, a worker was killed because he was installing a roof over 40 feet in the air on a windy day. A strong gust of wind caused him to lose his balance and fall from the roof striking to a concrete slab on the ground below. The Wrongful Death of this 36-year old worker left his wife without a husband and their three children without their father. The entire accident could have been avoided if owner and contractors had taken steps to insure that there were proper safety harnesses or railings in place. In addition, a Site Safety Manager or Construction Foreman could have exercised some common sense and told the workers to not install the roof that day because it was too windy or that they should not install the roof until the safety devices were in place. Apparently, there were no safety devices at all and a tragic death occurred.

The available safety devices that would have prevented this accident include both safety harnesses and safety railings. A construction safety harness is necessary for any job that involves vertical travel or work at an elevation. Approximately 37 percent of serious injuries and deaths at construction sites are attributed to falls. Safety harnesses are attached to life lines via lanyards, which are designed to minimize injury from “jerk back” during a fall. The OSHA and ANSI requirements for safety harnesses, life lines and lanyards are matters of public record and are disseminated throughout the construction industry. In addition, OSHA compliant fall protection railing systems are also readily available and well-known throughout the construction industry to eliminate falls from roofs, open floors, and other hazardous areas on construction sites.

Continue reading →
  1. Pages:
  3. 1
  4. ...
  5. 37
  6. 38
  7. 39
  8. 40
  9. 41
  10. 42
  11. 43
  12. 44
  13. 45
Badges
Super Lawyers Best Lawyers Martindale-Hubbell
SEE NEW JERSEY DISCLAIMER PAGE- AWARD METHODOLOGY