Case Study | Construction Accident
for a client injured in a construction site accident
Our client was a construction worker on a new residential development in Suffolk County. With no prior experience operating the equipment, he was directed by his employer to enter a bucket lift to trim trees on the property. While cutting a large branch, it shifted and pinned his hand against the side of the bucket, causing a serious crush injury.
The defense moved for summary judgment, arguing that tree trimming fell outside the scope of New York Labor Law protections because it was not construction work. Their position was that our client was performing landscaping, not construction activity, and therefore the Labor Law statutes did not apply.
“Tree trimming is landscaping, not construction. Labor Law 240 and 241(6) do not apply.”
| 1 | Establishing the construction context.
We developed the record to show that the tree trimming was not incidental landscaping but was an integral part of site preparation for a new residential construction project. The work was performed on an active job site in preparation for building, bringing it within the scope of Labor Law coverage. |
| 2 | Expert retention.
We retained a Labor Law expert who analyzed the specific facts of the accident and the nature of the work being performed. The expert confirmed that the use of a bucket lift for elevation work on a construction site triggered the protections of New York Labor Law, directly countering the defense’s characterization of the task. |
| 3 | Summary judgment motion practice.
Both sides filed summary judgment motions. As the motions were pending and the expert record was fully developed, the strength of the Labor Law argument became clear. The defendants, facing the weight of the expert testimony and the factual record, chose to resolve the case rather than await a decision. |
| 4 | Pre-decision settlement.
With the summary judgment motions fully briefed and expert testimony in the record, the case settled for $925,000 prior to the court’s decision. The settlement reflected the defendants’ recognition that the Labor Law argument was well-supported and a ruling in our favor was likely. |
The case settled for $925,000 prior to a decision on the pending summary judgment motions. The defense’s argument that tree trimming fell outside Labor Law protections was countered by expert testimony establishing that elevation work performed as part of an active construction project triggers the statute’s coverage. The result demonstrates that when the defense disputes Labor Law applicability, a well-developed expert record is often what determines the outcome.
All Case Results
When you’re ready to talk, we’re here. We offer a free, no obligation consultation at any of our 9 offices across Long Island, and we’re happy to come to you if you’re unable to travel. We have been fighting for Long Island families for over 25 years.
We’ll give you our honest assessment and tell you exactly how we’d approach your case. Our record speaks for itself. Our team has never represented an insurance company and never will. When you call Palermo Law, you’ll know quickly why so many Long Island families have trusted us since 1994.
