TELS Attorneys Mario Castellitto and Megan Bronk Obtain Summary Judgment in Case of Demolition Worker Who Suffered Severe Eye Injury

May 16, 2007

HAWTHORNE, New York -- TRAUB EGLIN LIEBERMAN STRAUS LLP (TELS) is proud to announce that the Supreme Court of New York, New York County dismissed the case against the firm’s client, Robo Breaking Co. Inc., in its entirety with prejudice and awarded costs as a result of TELS’ motion for summary judgment. The Court also dismissed co-defendant’s cross-claims for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance.

In Jannicelli v. Robo-Breaking Co. Inc., the plaintiff was a demolition worker who was directed by his foreman to prepare structural steel beams for sandblasting by using loppers to remove chunks of concrete from the beams. As plaintiff was cutting free a large chunk of concrete, it fell, hit his hard hat thereby causing the face shield attached to it to tilt askew. The concrete chunk continued to the ground, causing a piece of rebar lying on the floor to ricochet up under plaintiff’s face shield and into plaintiff’s eye. Plaintiff underwent numerous surgeries to his eye following the accident and claimed a permanent loss of vision. Robo Breaking Co. Inc. had previously demolished part of the structure in question, and plaintiff claimed that it had created the “debris” that ultimately injured plaintiff’s eye.

Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of New York State Labor Law §§240(1), 241(6) and 200, as well as common law negligence. The Court dismissed the Labor Law claims on grounds that the Labor Law did not apply to Robo Breaking Co. Inc., as it was not the owner, general contractor or a statutory agent because it did not exercise the requisite direction and control over plaintiff’s work. The Court also dismissed the Labor Law §240(1) claim against Robo Breaking Co. Inc., on grounds that the upwardly moving piece of rebar was not a “falling object” under Labor Law §240(1). The common law negligence claim was dismissed on grounds that Robo Breaking Co. Inc., as a non-contracting third-party, owed no duty to plaintiff. The Court also dismissed the co-defendant-owner’s cross-claim for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure and maintain insurance pursuant to Robo Breaking Co. Inc.’s subcontract with the general contractor, an entity which was not named in the suit.

TELS congratulates Mr. Castellitto and Ms. Bronk for their success in defending this complex Labor Law case.

For more information on Mr. Castellitto, a partner with TELS, please visit:

www.tels.com/attorneys/mariocastellitto

And to learn more about Ms. Bronk, an associate in the law firm’s New York office, please visit:

www.tels.com/attorneys/meganbronk/