GONZALEZ v. CHATSWORTH BUILDERS LLC (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Shawn T. Kelly, J.), entered March 17, 2026, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against defendants Chatsworth Builders LLC, West 207 Grocery Owners, LLC, and Inwood Lot 9 Development Associates LLC, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion to preclude nonparty witness statements offered by defendants, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff sustained his initial burden of establishing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.  Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while he was transporting over 300 pounds of construction material on an overloaded A-frame cart.  According to plaintiff, the construction material and cart flipped over and fell on him, causing injuries to his neck and back.  Plaintiff's testimony regarding the incident, submitted on his motion, was sufficient to make out a prima facie case.

However, in opposition to plaintiff's prima facie showing, defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's accident occurred, or, if it occurred, whether it occurred as plaintiff described and whether his injuries were causally related to the accident (see Broughton v. 553 Marcy Ave. Owners LLC, 238 A.D.3d 536, 536, 235 N.Y.S.3d 5 [1st Dept. 2025] ).  Defendants submitted a project sign-out sheet from the date of the accident, indicating that plaintiff stated that he did not suffer any unreported injuries that day.  Defendants also submitted 17 nonparty witness statements from individuals present at the project on the date of plaintiff's accident, all of whom denied witnessing or having contemporaneous knowledge of plaintiff's accident or seeing evidence that plaintiff was injured.  It would be immaterial that the accident was unwitnessed if there is nothing in the record that contradicts plaintiff's version of the accident or raises an issue as to his credibility (Gutierrez v. Turner Towers Tenants Corp., 202 A.D.3d 437, 438, 163 N.Y.S.3d 6 [1st Dept. 2022] ).  However, defendants also offered an affirmation of a biomechanics expert and expert reports from three doctors who performed independent medical examinations on plaintiff;  these experts all opined that plaintiff did not experience the acute trauma that a heavy load falling on him likely would have caused.  The experts opined plaintiff's alleged injuries were caused by a congenital or chronic degenerative condition rather than by acute trauma.  Defendants' evidence, taken together, is sufficient to raise an issue of fact precluding summary judgment (see Broughton at 537, 235 N.Y.S.3d 5).

Supreme Court providently exercised its broad discretion in denying plaintiff's cross-motion to preclude the nonparty witness statements offered by defendants, and we therefore decline to disturb the court's determination (see Youwanes v. Steinbrech, 193 A.D.3d 492, 492, 146 N.Y.S.3d 253 [1st Dept. 2021] ).