What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of the plaintiff's request for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim because important facts are disputed.

Who is affected by this decision?

The parties to the case—plaintiff Moises Ramirez and defendant 2500 Webb LLC—are directly affected; the decision keeps factual issues alive for trial or further proceedings.

What are the main factual disputes?

There is disagreement about whether a horizontal pipe or a vertical support post struck the plaintiff, whether that object was being disassembled at the time, and whether a safety device could have prevented the injury.

Can this decision be appealed again?

The decision is from the Appellate Division; further appeal to the Court of Appeals would depend on leave to appeal and whether the higher court accepts the case.

Ramirez v. 2500 Webb LLC

Docket Index No. 813626/21|Appeal No. 6477|Case No. 2025-04978|

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 28, 2026 · 3 days ago
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 02615
Docket numbers: Index No813626/21Appeal No6477Case No2025-04978

Appeal from denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim in Supreme Court, Bronx County.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of plaintiff Moises Ramirez's motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim against 2500 Webb LLC. The court found that genuine issues of fact remained about which object struck the plaintiff (horizontal versus vertical pipe/post), whether that object was a target of disassembly when the injury occurred, and whether a safety device was available that would have prevented the accident. Because these disputed facts are material to liability under Labor Law § 240(1), summary judgment was properly denied.

Issues Decided

Whether the record shows as a matter of law that the object that struck the plaintiff was the target of disassembly for purposes of Labor Law § 240(1).
Whether inconsistencies in the plaintiff's descriptions of the object (horizontal pipe versus vertical support pipe) preclude summary judgment.
Whether a safety device existed that would have prevented the accident and thus affected defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240(1).

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on precedent requiring that the falling or displaced object be a target of disassembly to trigger liability under Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff's inconsistent descriptions of the striking object—he testified one way at deposition but identified a different object on his workers' compensation form—created a triable issue about the object's identity. If the object was a vertical post rather than a horizontal pipe, it might not have been a target of disassembly, and there are also disputed facts about whether a safety device was in place. Those factual disputes defeated summary judgment.

Authorities Cited

Wilinski v 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.18 NY3d 1 (2011)
Abad v Brookfield Props. OLP Co. LLC190 AD3d 471 (1st Dept 2021)
Palermo v 7 W. 21 LLC192 AD3d 560 (1st Dept 2021)

Parties

Appellant: Moises Ramirez
Respondent: 2500 Webb LLC
Defendant: Rennon Construction Corp.
Attorney: Gorayeb & Associates, P.C. (Jonathan D. Moran of counsel) for appellant
Attorney: Ahmuty Demers & McManus LLP (Nicholas P. Calabria of counsel) for respondent
Judge: Erik L. Gray

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-28
Order entered in Supreme Court: 2025-05-30

What You Should Do Next

1
Prepare for trial or further proceedings
Because material factual issues remain, parties should gather witness statements, deposition clarifications, and physical evidence about the object and safety devices to support their positions at trial.
2
Consider clarifying testimony
Plaintiff's counsel may seek to clarify or reconcile inconsistencies between the workers' compensation form and deposition testimony to reduce triable issues.
3
Evaluate interlocutory appeal or leave to appeal
If a party believes there is a controlling question of law, they should consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, though such leave is discretionary.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's denial of the plaintiff's request for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim because important facts are disputed.
Who is affected by this decision?: The parties to the case—plaintiff Moises Ramirez and defendant 2500 Webb LLC—are directly affected; the decision keeps factual issues alive for trial or further proceedings.
What are the main factual disputes?: There is disagreement about whether a horizontal pipe or a vertical support post struck the plaintiff, whether that object was being disassembled at the time, and whether a safety device could have prevented the injury.
Can this decision be appealed again?: The decision is from the Appellate Division; further appeal to the Court of Appeals would depend on leave to appeal and whether the higher court accepts the case.

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

Ramirez v 2500 Webb LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 02615

Ramirez v 2500 Webb LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 02615

April 28, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

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