What did the court decide?

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the liability portion of his Labor Law § 240(1) claim because he fell into an unguarded, deep trench and defendants failed to show a defense.

Who is affected by this decision?

The plaintiff (Rijo) and the defendants (YYY 62nd Street LLC and related parties) are directly affected; the decision confirms liability on the safety claim against the defendants.

What happens next in the case?

This decision resolves liability in the plaintiff's favor; remaining issues likely include damages, which will proceed in the trial court unless further appeals or motions are filed.

Why did the defendants lose?

They failed to produce evidence creating a factual dispute or to show that safety devices like guardrails were impractical or required to be absent for the work.

Can this decision be appealed again?

Yes, the defendants could seek permission to appeal to a higher court, such as the New York Court of Appeals, subject to applicable appellate rules and timelines.

Rijo v. YYY 62nd St. LLC

Docket Index No. 27539/18|Appeal No. 6492|Case No. 2025-06464|

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

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 30, 2026 · yesterday
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 02733
Docket numbers: Index No27539/18Appeal No6492Case No2025-06464

Appeal from an order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denying defendants' cross-motion to dismiss that claim.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment holding the plaintiff liable on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. The plaintiff testified he slipped on gravel and fell into an unguarded trench up to 10–12 feet deep alongside a building foundation; the trench had a makeshift pathway but no guardrail. The court found this testimony uncontradicted and held defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or justify the absence of a guardrail as necessary to the work. The judgment for plaintiff on liability was therefore upheld.

Issues Decided

Whether plaintiff established entitlement to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) based on his fall into an unguarded trench.
Whether defendants raised a triable issue of fact or justified the absence of a guardrail as necessary to the work.

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony that he slipped on gravel and fell into a substantially deep trench alongside the building, which created a heightened risk that Labor Law § 240(1) protects against. Defendants did not produce evidence creating a factual dispute or show a work-related reason why protective devices like guardrails were impractical or contrary to the work. Because the absence of a guardrail was not justified and the hazard was evident, summary judgment for plaintiff on liability was appropriate.

Authorities Cited

Altamirano v Frick Collection245 AD3d 401 (1st Dept 2026)
Gjeka v Iron Horse Transportation, Inc.151 AD3d 463 (1st Dept 2017)
Salazar v Novalex Construction Corp.18 NY3d 134 (2011)
Wilson v AC 320 Hotel Partners LLC238 AD3d 581 (1st Dept 2025)

Parties

Plaintiff: Daulin Gabriel Rijo
Defendant: YYY 62nd Street LLC
Attorney: Samantha Velez (for appellants)
Attorney: Jonathan D. Moran (for respondent)
Judge: Kennedy, J.P.
Judge: Gesmer, J.
Judge: González, J.
Judge: Rosado, J.
Judge: Chan, J.

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-30
Trial court order entered: 2025-08-29

What You Should Do Next

1
Proceed on damages in trial court
The trial court should address and determine the amount of damages owed to the plaintiff now that liability is established.
2
Consider further appeal
Defendants considering continued challenge should consult counsel about seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals and evaluate grounds and deadlines for such a petition.
3
Preserve record on remediation and safety
Both parties should compile and preserve evidence about site safety, remedial steps, and any mitigating facts relevant to damages or potential comparative fault inquiries.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the liability portion of his Labor Law § 240(1) claim because he fell into an unguarded, deep trench and defendants failed to show a defense.
Who is affected by this decision?: The plaintiff (Rijo) and the defendants (YYY 62nd Street LLC and related parties) are directly affected; the decision confirms liability on the safety claim against the defendants.
What happens next in the case?: This decision resolves liability in the plaintiff's favor; remaining issues likely include damages, which will proceed in the trial court unless further appeals or motions are filed.
Why did the defendants lose?: They failed to produce evidence creating a factual dispute or to show that safety devices like guardrails were impractical or required to be absent for the work.
Can this decision be appealed again?: Yes, the defendants could seek permission to appeal to a higher court, such as the New York Court of Appeals, subject to applicable appellate rules and timelines.

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

Rijo v YYY 62nd St. LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 02733

Rijo v YYY 62nd St. LLC

2026 NY Slip Op 02733

April 30, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Daulin Gabriel Rijo, Plaintiff-Respondent,

YYY 62nd Street LLC et al., Defendants-Appellants. &lsqb;And a Third-Party Action&rsqb;.

Decided and Entered: April 30, 2026

Index No. 27539/18|Appeal No. 6492|Case No. 2025-06464|

Before: Kennedy, J.P., Gesmer, González, Rosado, Chan, JJ.

Kahana & Feld LLP, New York (Samantha Velez of counsel), for appellants.

Gorayeb & Associates, P.C., New York (Jonathan D. Moran of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Matthew Parker-Raso, J.), entered on or about August 29, 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 for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Plaintiff's uncontradicted testimony established that, as he was walking to his work area he slipped on gravel and fell into a trench that was approximately four-feet wide and varied in depth, with the deepest part reaching 10 to 12 feet. The trench, which had a makeshift staircase or pathway for workers to use to enter the space, was dug along the faÇade of the building so that work could be completed on the building's foundation. The trench did not have any guardrails to stop a worker from falling in (
see Altamirano v Frick Collection
, 245 AD3d 401, 401 [1st Dept 2026];
Gjeka v Iron Horse Transp., Inc.
, 151 AD3d 463, 464 [1st Dept 2017]).

In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact. Defendants' argument that any safety device that would have prevented the accident would have been impractical, illogical, or contrary to the work is unpersuasive. Even if a covering over the trench would have been contrary to the work, defendants fail to point to any evidence of a work-related reason for the absence of a guardrail (
see

Wilson v AC 320 Hotel Partners LLC
, 238 AD3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2025];
cf. Salazar v Novalex Contr. Corp.
, 18 NY3d 134, 140 [2011]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 30, 2026