Ramirez v. 2500 Webb LLC
This text of Ramirez v. 2500 Webb LLC (Ramirez v. 2500 Webb 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
Ramirez v 2500 Webb LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 02615
April 28, 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.
Moises Ramirez, Appellant,
v
2500 Webb LLC, Respondent, Rennon Construction Corp., Defendant.
Decided and Entered: April 28, 2026
Index No. 813626/21|Appeal No. 6477|Case No. 2025-04978|
Before: Webber, J.P., Mendez, Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ.
Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (Jonathan D. Moran of counsel), for appellant.
Ahmuty Demers & McManus LLP, Albertson (Nicholas P. Calabria of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Erik L. Gray, J.), entered on or about May 30, 2025, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
There are triable issues concerning whether plaintiff was injured by an object that was the target of disassembly (see Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 NY3d 1, 11 [2011]). Plaintiff testified that, while disassembling a sidewalk bridge, he was injured by a horizontal pipe that fell while a coworker disconnected it from a vertical post. However, in his workers' compensation claim form, plaintiff identified a "[v]ertical support pipe" as the object that struck him, and in his deposition testimony he expressed confusion between the words "vertical" and "horizontal." This inconsistency raised a triable issue as to the identity of the object that struck him. Moreover, if the object was a vertical pipe or post, a further issue of fact exists as to whether it was a target of disassembly at the time of plaintiff's accident (see Abad v Brookfield Props. OLP Co. LLC, 190 AD3d 471, 471 [1st Dept 2021]). In addition, there are factual issues regarding whether there was a safety device that would have prevented the accident (see Palermo v 7 W. 21 LLC, 192 AD3d 560, 561 [1st Dept 2021]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: April 28, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI