Hearns v. Blended Family LLC
This text of Hearns v. Blended Family LLC (Hearns v. Blended Family 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
Court Decisions Resources About
Hearns v Blended Family LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 02373
April 21, 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.
Gaines Hearns, Appellant-Respondent,
v
Blended Family LLC, Respondent-Appellant, Abeken Apartments LP, Defendant-Respondent.
Decided and Entered: April 21, 2026
Index No. 801860/22|Appeal No. 6121|Case No. 2025-01282|
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, González, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ.
Block O'Toole & Murphy, LLP, New York (Christina R. Mercado of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Coffey Modica LLP, Islandia (Robert Modica of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Horn Appellate Group, Brooklyn (Ross Salvatore Friscia of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered on or about January 3, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted in part the motion of defendant Abeken Apartments, LLP for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against it and for judgment in its favor on its cross-claim for contractual indemnification against defendant Blended Family LLC to the extent of dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against Abeken and granting Abeken conditional contractual indemnification against Blended Family, and granted the motion of defendant Blended Family for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, a telecommunications field technician employed by nonparty Verizon, alleges that he was injured while he was installing wi-fi services at a mixed-use building. The premises were owned by Abeken, which leased the commercial portion of its basement to Blended Family for operation of a daycare center. The lease did not include the basement on the residential side of the building, which contained a superintendent's office, storage room, sprinkler room, and telecommunications equipment room. Although the residential and commercial basements for the building were contiguous, there was no door connecting them; each was separately accessed from outside the building. Blended Family engaged Verizon to provide it with wireless internet services.
[*2]Plaintiff testified that when he arrived at the building, he proceeded to Blended Family's space. Upon inspection, he determined that Blended Family's router would be located inside its leased basement space and would be connected by wire to the building's Verizon's router, which was in a telecommunications equipment room inside the residential basement. Since plaintiff needed to access the basement, either he or one of Blended Family's employees contacted Abeken's superintendent, who unlocked the basement from the outside and escorted him in. According to plaintiff, connecting the Blended Family router to Verizon's equipment required a "long run" through the drop ceiling from Blended Family's space into the residential basement's hallway, and then to the telecommunications equipment room. Plaintiff stated that this required drilling a hole in the wall between Blended Family's space and the basement hallway and then a hole in the wall between the basement hallway and the Verizon equipment room to feed the cable through and back into the drop ceiling. Plaintiff set up one of his two ladders inside Blended Family's space and the other inside the telecommunications equipment room. According to plaintiff, since he would also need a ladder in the basement hallway, he asked to use the building's ladder, which was in the basement of the building, so he would not have to move either of his two ladders. Plaintiff stated thathe was allowed use of the building ladder by the superintendent. This is disputed by the superintendent who testified that he did not provide plaintiff with a ladder. According to plaintiff, he began feeding the wire through Blended Family's drop ceiling, through a hole he drilled in the wall between Blended Family's space and the building's hallway, and then into the hallway's drop ceiling. He then began to run the cable through the hallway's drop ceiling while standing on the building's ladder. While pulling the cable, he felt the ladder shift to the right and fall all the way over, taking him with it. According to plaintiff, he did not observe any defects or problems with the ladder before or after his accident and did not know what caused him to fall. He also did not remember how the ladder landed other than it was either closed or partially closed. He never inspected the ladder or determined whether it was broken.
[*3]The building superintendent testified that he allowed plaintiff into the basement telecommunications equipment room and remained outside during the entire time plaintiff performed his work. The superintendent testified that he observed plaintiff open the box and connect some wires. He did not see plaintiff drill any holes and did not know if plaintiff had a drill or whether plaintiff's work required drilling in order to run wires. The superintendent testified that after plaintiff completed his work, he locked the door to the telecommunications equipment room and walked plaintiff back to the daycare center. He testified that he never saw plaintiff again, that plaintiff never returned to the residential side of the building, and that plaintiff did not perform any other work in the basement later that day.
Plaintiff commenced suit against Abeken and Blended Family, alleging causes of action for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Plaintiff subsequently moved for partial summary judgment on his claims pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), arguing that Abeken and Blended Family were subject to Labor Law liability as the owner and lessee of the premises, that he was a protected person engaged in an alteration activity, that the ladder shifted and thus was not a sufficient device, and that he was not the sole proximate cause of the accident.
Abeken moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for judgment against Blended Family on its contractual indemnity claim. Abeken argued that plaintiff was not a "covered worker" under the statute because the work that was performed—cable television work—was not a covered activity under the statute. Alternatively, Abeken argued that plaintiff was not a covered person because the work was a mere alteration not encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1). Abeken also moved for indemnity against Blended Family.
Blended Family opposed that portion of Abeken's motion for indemnity, arguing that Abeken was in exclusive control of the area of the accident and the ladder from which plaintiff fell, making any indemnity provision void. It also argued that the provision was not triggered because the accident did not occur in or about the demised premises.
[*4]Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI