Associate Daniel Voronin Obtains Summary Judgment Dismissal in Queens County Labor Law Case.
Associate Daniel Voronin successfully secured a summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff's Complaint, which encompassed all common law and Labor Law claims, in a decade-old Labor Law case in Queens County. The plaintiff, a union electrician, initially stated that while walking backwards and uncoiling electrical wires, he stepped on an unsecured floor panel that flipped up, resulting in his left leg falling through the raised-access flooring to the concrete subfloor beneath. However, the plaintiff later changed his account, claiming that his injury occurred when he slipped on unidentified debris, leading his leg to fall into an open hole in the raised-access floor near the building's core. Compounding the inconsistencies, the plaintiff suggested the possibility of two separate accidents occurring on the same day, although he could not specify which incident happened first. The various accident reports submitted to his employer and Workers’ Compensation were also inconsistent, either neglecting to describe the debris he allegedly slipped on or omitting any mention of stepping into a hole in the raised-access floor. When presented with these differing accident reports and photographs of the job site showing various holes in the raised-access floor, the plaintiff's memory did not improve regarding the specifics of how and where the accident transpired.
On summary judgment, Mr. Voronin filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint and sought contractual defense and indemnity from both the plaintiff's employer and the subcontractor responsible for the raised-access floor. A central point of Mr. Voronin's argument was that the plaintiff failed to establish the cause of his accident, which would necessitate the jury to engage in speculation regarding the incident's cause. Despite the plaintiff's objections, the Honorable Justice Timothy J. Dufficy concurred with Mr. Voronin's reasoning and dismissed the plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety. Furthermore, Judge Dufficy remarked that since the plaintiff's alleged accident was connected to his employer's work on the project, the employer was obligated to defend and indemnify both the owner and the general contractor.
Through Mr. Voronin's vigorous legal advocacy, he not only protected his client from potential financial liabilities amounting to millions in settlement or jury verdict contributions but also ensured the recovery of defense costs from the plaintiff's employer.
#BMMWINS #bmmfirm