Gavilanes v. 919 Ground Lease LLC
Docket Index No. 153246/22 |Appeal No. 6454|Case No. 2025-03947|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02451
- Docket numbers
- Index No153246/22Appeal No6454Case No2025-03947
Appeal from a Supreme Court order granting plaintiff summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and denying defendants' cross-motion to dismiss that claim
Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a Supreme Court order granting plaintiff Luis Gavilanes summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against defendant 919 Ground Lease LLC and others. The court held that the evidence shows defendants’ negligence in failing to provide proper fall protection — plaintiff was directed to climb cross-pipes without a harness tie-off and could not secure his harness — and that this was a proximate cause of his injury. The court also found defendant translations insufficiently certified but that factual disputes about ladder availability did not defeat liability.
Issues Decided
- Whether plaintiff established entitlement to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) for failure to provide proper fall protection
- Whether the translated evidence submitted by defendants met the required certification standards
- Whether availability of a ladder or other alleged alternative safety measures defeated the Labor Law § 240(1) claim
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the rule that employers must provide proper protection against elevation-related risks and that directing a worker to climb unprotected cross-pipes without a secure tie-off violates Labor Law § 240(1). Plaintiff's testimony that he was ordered to climb and could not tie off his harness because the hook was too small established negligence and proximate causation. Translation certifications that only assert fluency were inadequate to authenticate foreign-language evidence, and even if a ladder existed there was no proof it was a suitable alternative or that plaintiff refused a usable ladder.
Authorities Cited
- Nava-Juarez v Moshulu Fieldston Realty, LLC167 AD3d 511 (1st Dept 2018)
- National Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc. v Casa Publs., Inc.79 AD3d 592 (1st Dept 2010)
- Hoffman v SJP TS, LLC111 AD3d 467 (1st Dept 2013)
- Ortiz v City of New York224 AD3d 631 (1st Dept 2024)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Luis Gavilanes
- Defendant
- 919 Ground Lease LLC
- Attorney
- Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris & Willis, PLLC (Thomas G. Darmody of counsel)
- Attorney
- Gorayeb & Associates, P.C. (John M. Shaw of counsel)
- Judge
- Leticia M. Ramirez
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-23
- Lower court order entered
- 2025-04-03
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Proceed on damages and remaining claims
The plaintiff and court should address the amount of damages and resolve any remaining third-party or defensive claims in the trial court consistent with the affirmed liability ruling.
- 2
Consider motion for leave to appeal
Defendants wishing to continue should consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals and prepare grounds focused on controlling legal questions or conflicts among decisions.
- 3
Supplement or refile translated evidence properly
If defendants intend to rely on foreign-language documents, they should obtain certifications showing the translator's qualifications and objective competence and submit properly authenticated translations in the trial court.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed that the defendant is liable under Labor Law § 240(1) because the worker was ordered to climb unsecured cross-pipes and could not properly tie off his harness, which caused his injury.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The plaintiff, defendants (including 919 Ground Lease LLC), and potentially other contractors or property owners on similar worksites are affected because the ruling confirms liability for failing to provide adequate fall protection.
- What happens next procedurally?
- This decision affirms liability; remaining issues likely concern damages and any third-party claims, which will proceed in the trial court or by further motion.
- Why did the court reject the defendants' translation evidence?
- Because the translator attestations only stated fluency without showing that the translators were professionally qualified or objectively competent, which is required to authenticate translated documents.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The defendants may seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals, but they must follow New York's rules for leave to appeal from the Appellate Division.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Gavilanes v 919 Ground Lease LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 02451 Gavilanes v 919 Ground Lease LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 02451 April 23, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Luis Gavilanes, Plaintiff-Respondent, v 919 Ground Lease LLC et al., Defendants-Appellants. [And A Third-Party Action]. Decided and Entered: April 23, 2026 Index No. 153246/22 |Appeal No. 6454|Case No. 2025-03947| Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kennedy, González, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, JJ. Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris & Willis, PLLC, Melville (Thomas G. Darmody of counsel), for appellants. Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (John M. Shaw of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leticia M. Ramirez, J.), entered on or about April 3, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied defendants' cross-motion seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. The proponent of translated evidence has the burden of demonstrating "that the translation was provided by a competent, objective interpreter whose translation was accurate" ( Nava-Juarez v Moshulu Fieldston Realty, LLC , 167 AD3d 511, 512 [1st Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Generally, a certification that the translator is professionally qualified and is competent in both languages is sufficient ( see National Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc. v Casa Publs., Inc. , 79 AD3d 592, 594 [1st Dept 2010]). Here, the translator attestations state only that each translator was fluent in both Spanish and English, with no indication of any other credentials. The record contains sufficient evidence to establish that defendants' negligence resulted in a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and was a proximate cause of plaintiff's accident and injury. Plaintiff testified that although he needed a mobile scaffold to perform his work at the subject worksite, he was instead directed by his foreman immediately before the accident occurred to cross over to the other side of the structure by climbing on the cross-pipes of the structure without a harness. Plaintiff also testified that the foreman had directed him to climb the structure on a prior occasion. Plaintiff testified that although he had a harness, he could not tie it off because its hook was too small for the pipes ( see Hoffman v SJP TS, LLC , 111 AD3d 467, 467 [1st Dept 2013]). While there is some dispute as to whether a ladder was available at the worksite on the date of the accident, if it was available and plaintiff knew about it there is no evidence that plaintiff refused to use it or that it was a suitable alternative to the mobile scaffold ( see Ortiz v City of New York , 224 AD3d 631, 631-32 [1st Dept 2024]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: April 23, 2026