We have relocated our New York City office! Learn more

Brandon H. Weinstein and Sean Hughes Win Summary Judgment and Complete Indemnification of New York Labor Law Case in Bronx County

January 15, 2026

Brandon H. Weinstein, a Partner in our New York Labor Law Construction Practice Group, and Sean Hughes, an Associate in the same group, successfully obtained summary judgment in the case of Juan Marquez v. Comunilife, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court, Bronx County). The court dismissed all claims against our client, including alleged violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240[1], 241[6], and 200, and further awarded our client contractual indemnification against the general contractor and a subcontractor, as well as common-law indemnification and contribution against a carting subcontractor.

The plaintiff alleged that he sustained injuries in 2019 while working at a construction project located at 2064 Boston Road. According to the plaintiff, he was struck by a piece of wood protruding from a garbage compactor when the truck operator activated the compactor, causing the wood to swing upward in a seesaw-like motion.

Our client, the property owner, had no involvement in the day-to-day operations of the project. In support of our motion, we prepared a detailed argument explaining that gravity was not a contributing factor in the accident. Rather, the incident resulted solely from the application of force by the garbage compactor, rendering Labor Law § 240 inapplicable. We further argued that the plaintiff’s remaining claims failed because he did not allege a viable Industrial Code predicate under Labor Law § 241[6], and our client exercised no control over the manner or means of the plaintiff’s work.

We also succeeded in obtaining indemnification for our client by demonstrating that a separate hold harmless agreement, which eliminated any requirement that the general contractor commit a negligent act, was controlling due to its supremacy clause. The Honorable Elizabeth E. Taylor, JSC, granted all the relief sought in our motion, finding that there was “no suggestion by any party that [our client] exercised any supervisory control over the work…”