Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ZENUN RAMAJ et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. Franciosa Complex, LLC, Defendant–Appellant, GREEN CASTLE A. MGMT. CORP. et al., Defendants. [And A Third-Party Action]
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchel J. Danziger, J.), entered September 6, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that plaintiff Zenun Ramaj's accident was proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The evidence established that defendants failed to provide an adequate safety device protecting plaintiff from falling into a 71/212-foot deep trench when the wood planking covering the trench broke (see Devlin v. AECOM, 224 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2024]; Rubio v. New York Proton Mgt., LLC, 192 AD3d 438, 439 [1st Dept 2021]; see also Palumbo v. Citigroup Tech., Inc., 240 AD3d 455, 456 [1st Dept 2025] ).
In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact. That there was no other witness to the accident does not bar judgment in plaintiff's favor (see Dyszkiewicz v. City of New York, 194 AD3d 444, 445 [1st Dept 2021] ). Although plaintiff's testimony that the covering was not secured to the ground was contradicted by a coworker who testified that the covering was secured with nails, this inconsistency does not raise a material issue of fact as to whether the trench covering failed as a safety device (see Ortiz v. Burke Ave. Realty, Inc., 126 AD3d 577, 578 [1st Dept 2015] ).
We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Index No. 20363 /19
Decided: April 14, 2026
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)