Acosta v. 22-12 Jackson Owner LLC
This text of Acosta v. 22-12 Jackson Owner LLC (Acosta v. 22-12 Jackson Owner LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Acosta v 22-12 Jackson Owner LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 04135
June 30, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Junior Carty Acosta, Appellant-Respondent,
v
22-12 Jackson Owner LLC, et al., Respondents-Appellants.
22-12 Jackson Owner LLC, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents-Appellants,
Vector Building Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, Quality Facility Solutions Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. (And Other Actions.)
Decided and Entered: June 30, 2026
Index No. 23090/19, 43586/19|Appeal No. 6982|Case No. 2025-03411|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, O'neill Levy, JJ.
Law Offices of William Cafaro, New York (Bill Cafaro of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Fuchs Rosenzweig, PLLC, New York (Angelika Arias-Linares of counsel), for Feldman Lumber-US LBM, LLC, respondent-appellant.
McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn (Daniel C. Reiser of counsel), for 22-12 Jackson Owner LLC, and Britt Realty LLC, respondents-appellants.
Gartner + Bloom P.C., New York (Narriman Subrati of counsel), for Vector Building Corp., respondent-appellant.
Galvano & Xanthakis, PC, Staten Island (Matthew D. Kelly of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered April 14, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied so much of plaintiff's motion as sought summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against defendant Feldman Lumber-US LBM, LLC and granted so much of plaintiff's motion as sought summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against defendants 22-12 Jackson Owner LLC, Britt Realty, LLC, and Vector Building Corp.; granted so much of 22-12 Jackson and Britt Realty's summary judgment motion as sought dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against 22-12 Jackson, denied so much of the motion as sought dismissal of those claims as against Britt Realty, and denied so much of the motion as sought summary judgment on their cross-claims for contractual indemnification as against Vector and third-party defendant Quality Facility Solutions Corp. (QFS) and on their cross-claims for common-law indemnity as against Feldman Lumber; and denied so much of Vector's summary judgment motion as sought dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against it, dismissal of 22-12 Jackson and Britt Realty's cross-claims for contractual indemnification as against it, and dismissal of 22-12 Jackson's, Britt Realty's, Feldman Lumber's, and QFS's cross-claims for contribution and common-law indemnification as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant so much of plaintiff's motion as sought summary judgment on liability on his cause of action for common-law negligence as against Feldman Lumber, to conditionally grant so much of 22-12 Jackson and Britt Realty's motion as sought summary judgment on their cross-claims for contractual indemnification as against Vector and QFS, and to grant summary judgment to 22-12 Jackson on its cross-claim for common-law indemnification as against Feldman Lumber, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, a laborer employed by QFS, alleges that he was injured when sheetrock slid off of a Spyder forklift operated by an employee of Feldman Lumber and fell onto him as he was disposing of construction debris.
[*2]Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor as to liability on his common-law negligence claim against Feldman Lumber. Plaintiff offered expert opinions from an experienced forklift operator, who opined that the accident could have happened only if Feldman Lumber's employee failed to properly operate the machinery by fully extending its forks. In opposition, Feldman Lumber failed to raise an issue of fact. Feldman Lumber's expert failed to address plaintiff's expert's opinion concerning the operator's failure to operate the machinery properly. Further, no third-party acts intervened between the employee's improper operation of the machinery, which dropped the sheetrock on plaintiff, sufficient to sever the causal connection (see Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp., 51 NY2d 308, 315 [1980]).
Supreme Court correctly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action against 22-12 Jackson, Britt Realty, and Vector. Initially, the record in this case establishes that all three parties qualified as proper Labor Law defendants (see Nascimento v Bridgehampton Constr. Corp., 86 AD3d 189, 192-193 [1st Dept 2011]). As to Vector in particular, the record establishes that it agreed to exercise a sufficient level of supervisory control so as to qualify (id. at 193). As to liability, plaintiff's evidence amply supports the conclusion that he was injured by a falling object, and that the object fell on him because of the absence of appropriate safety devices (see Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267-268 [2001]). In opposition, defendants offered no eyewitness testimony or other such evidence to directly rebut plaintiff's evidence as to how this accident occurred.
[*3]Supreme Court also properly denied 22-12 Jackson and Britt Realty's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action as against Britt Realty, the general contractor. Labor Law § 200 applies "to owners, general contractors, and their statutory agents" (see Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 316-317 [1981]). Britt Realty's representative testified that Vector had responsibility for site safety, and that Vector, not Britt Realty, was responsible for deliveries to the site. However, the Feldman Lumber machinery operator testified that it was Britt Realty who instructed him where to park his truck before he began using the Spyder forklift to unload the sheetrock. In addition, other witness testimony, including record evidence from the Department of Buildings inspector, raised issues of fact as to Britt Realty's obligations to set procedures to ensure worker safely in the delivery areas of the construction site. In light of this testimony, the court correctly declined to dismiss plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Britt Realty, as triable issues of fact exist concerning its supervision and control of the injury-producing work.
However, the court should have granted summary judgment to 22-12 Jackson and Britt Realty on their contractual indemnification cross-claims as against Vector and QFS (see Drzewinski v Atlantic Scaffold & Ladder Co., 70 NY2d 774, 777 [1987]).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Acosta v. 22-12 Jackson Owner LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/acosta-v-22-12-jackson-owner-llc-nyappdiv-2026.