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

Once again our Partner Howard Hershenhorn was forced to respond to the ludicrous assertion by lawyers for master rigger William Rapetti who chose to rely on four pre-used and worn-out yellow polyester straps — called “slings,” — to secure a five-ton metal brace to the crane’s mast that Wayne Blinder, the Crane operator was at fault. The crane’s boom and its cab — with Wayne Bleidner, 51, helpless at the controls — broke off from the rest of the crane and catapulted onto the roof of a four-story brownstone on East 50th Street. Howard, quoted in The New York Post stated;

“It really cries of desperation,” says Bleidner’s lawyer Howard Hershenhorn, who is handling the family’s suit against Rapetti’s company.

“There have been four separate entities that have looked at this accident objectively — OSHA, the Department of Buildings, an engineering firm hired by the Department of Buildings, and Lehigh University, where the slings were sent,” Hershenhorn said.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Our Partner, Howard Hershenhorn, who is leading our representation of the family of the crane operator Wayne Bleidner, who was killed when a 200-foot-tall rig crashed down on a dense New York City block, killing seven people, leaving a gash of destruction near the United Nations and raising questions about the safety of the steel spindles that build skyscrapers, responded to the absurd claim by the rigger’s attorney who is being prosecuted for manslaughter, that some responsibility may lie with a crane operator who was killed in the collapse stating;

“Instead of Rapetti stepping up and taking responsibility for what multiple agencies and multiple independent parties have determined to be his fault, he now, in the most cowardly way, is going to blame the victim.” Read More.

Howard is recognized as one of the leading Construction Accident Lawyers in New York having tried numerous construction accident cases as well as speaking on them for The New York State Bar Association.

Published on:

By

For those who have practiced in the area of New York Construction Accidents both plaintiff and defense attorneys can agree on one point: the law interpreting New York Labor Law, Section 240(1) is constantly changing. The pendulum swings back and forth. For a brief discussion of the ever changing law click here. With regard to falling objects, prior to 2001 if an object at a New York Construction Site fell striking a worker the plaintiff won. Then in May of 2001 that changed with the decision by The Court of Appeals in Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 N.Y.2d 259, 268, 750 N.E.2d 1085, 727 N.Y.S.2d 37 [2001]) in which The Court held;

“With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240 (1) applies where the falling of an object is related to “a significant risk inherent in … the relative elevation … at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured” ( Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., supra, 78 NY2d, at 514). Thus, for section 240 (1) to apply, a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell causing injury to a worker. A plaintiff must show that the object fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute…”

What followed was a rash of dismissed “falling object” cases. Then in 2005 The Court in Outar v City of New York, 5 NY3d 731, 731, 832 N.E.2d 1186, 799 N.Y.S.2d 770 affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff who had been injured when struck by a falling Dolly holding “The elevation differential between the dolly and plaintiff was sufficient to trigger Labor Law § 240 (1)’s protection, and the dolly was an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking…”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

From The New York Daily News;

The owner of the city’s largest construction crane company ( New York Crane and Equipment Company) is expected to be indicted for manslaughter in the death of two workers killed in an upper East Side disaster nearly two years ago.

For more information on New York Crane Accidents contact our New York Construction Accident Lawyers.

Published on:

By

Our Partner, Howard S. Hershenhorn is The Overall Planning Chair Of This New York State Bar Association Program and our Partner, Christopher L. Sallay is the Assistant Planning Chair. Also Participating from our Firm are Ben B. Rubinowitz, Chair of The Long Island Program. Our partners, Robert L. Conason and Anthony H. Gair will also be speaking at the program. Bob Conason will be speaking at both the New York City and Long Island Seminars. Below are Links to the locations, dates and description of the Program.

Friday, November 20, 2009 Buffalo- http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Events1&Template=/Conference/ConferenceDescByRegClass.cfm&ConferenceID=3584

Friday, December 4, 2009 Latham- http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Events1&Template=/Conference/ConferenceDescByRegClass.cfm&ConferenceID=3585

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

This is from a Seminar by The New York State Bar Association, Construction Site Accidents: The Trial of a Labor Law Case. The Seminar was developed by Howard S. Hershenhorn who was the over -all planning chair. In this segment Mr. Hershenhorn gives a demonstration of an opening statement on behalf of a worker injured in a New York Construction Accident. The full seminar is recorded and available for CLE Credits from The NYSBA.

For more information on New York construction accidents contact the New York Construction Accident Lawyers at Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf.

Published on:

By

In Parente v 277 Park Ave. LLC, decided June 25, 2009, The New York Appellate Division, First Department granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment under Section 240 of The New York State Labor Law.

The plaintiff was injured when he fell off a ladder he had placed on a desktop in an office leased by defendant Chase, while inspecting a malfunctioning booster fan over the desk. In rejecting the defendants’ argument that the work was only routine maintenance The Court held:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors and their agents for injuries to workers engaged in the repairing of a building or structure that results from falls from ladders or other similar devices that do not provide the intended protection against such falls (see Orellano v 29 E. 37th St. Realty Corp., 292 AD2d 289, 290 [2002]). It does not, however, apply to routine maintenance that is not performed in the context of construction or renovation. Replacement of parts that routinely wear out is considered maintenance, outside the purview of this section (see Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878, 882 [2003]). Where something has gone awry, however, requiring repair, § 240(1) is applicable (see Caraciolo v 800 Second Ave. Condominium, 294 AD2d 200, 201-202 [2002]; Franco v Jemal, 280 AD2d 409 [2001]).

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In Campuzano v. Board of Education of the City of New York, JJ Lyons Associates, Inc; Decided on August 12, 2008, The First Department reversed the denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and granted the motion. The facts as set forth in The opinion of The Court were as follows;

“Plaintiff Joaquin Campuzano and a coworker, while performing asbestos abatement work, were removing a heavy duct from a ceiling by cutting it with an acetylene torch. They started this work on a scaffold, but Campuzano determined it was dangerous to work that way, and decided instead to set up a ladder adjacent to the scaffold. While Campuzano was standing on the ladder and holding the hoses for the torch, a portion of the duct fell, hitting him and the ladder and knocking him to the ground.”

In granting plaintiffs’240(1) Motion The Court held;

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In Bradley vIBEX Construction, et al. decided June 26th, 2008, The First Dept. reversed the lower Court’s decision denying plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a verdict for defendants and granted the motion and directed judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs on the issue of liability pursuant to § 240(1), and remanded for a trial on damages and apportionment of fault among defendants.

The Court held that plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied. It further held the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a directed verdict on the issue of liability was proper as there was an issue of fact as to whether the alleged violation of § 240(1) proximately caused his accident. However, in granting plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the verdict The Court held;

“However, the motion court improperly denied plaintiffs’ posttrial motion to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Since the jury determined that plaintiff worker fell off the ladder, it could not have reasonably concluded, in light of the evidence, that the ladder was placed and used so as to give him proper protection in the performance of his work. Other than the accident report, which the jury clearly rejected, defendants and second third-party defendant failed to present any evidence controverting plaintiffs’ version of the accident, i.e., that the ladder had slipped on the plastic-covered floor. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that plaintiff worker’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injury (see Bonanno v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 298 AD2d 269 [2002]).”
Published on:

By

In Morales v. D & A Food Service, et.al; June 25th 2008, The Court Of Appeals in reversing The First Depatrment’s dismissal of plaintiff’s Section 240(1) claim held;

“The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendant Santomero’s motion for summary judgment denied, plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against defendant Santomero granted and certified question answered in the negative.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, plaintiff’s work constituted an alteration within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 465 [1998]). In light of our recent decision in Sanatass v Consolidated Inv. Co., Inc. (10 NY3d 333 [2008]), defendant’s contention that he lacks a sufficient nexus with plaintiff to support liability under section 240 (1) is without merit. Since plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his section 240 (1) claim and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition thereto, plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on liability. ”

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