Ramaj v Franciosa Complex, LLC
2026 NY Slip Op 02222 [248 AD3d 528]
April 14, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, June 10, 2026
Zenun Ramaj et al., Respondents,
v
Franciosa Complex, LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)
April 14, 2026
HEADNOTES
Labor — Safe Place to Work — Fall into Trench — Adequate Safety Device
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Peirce & Salvato PLLC, White Plains (Richard A. Salvato of counsel), for appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchel J. Danziger, J.), entered September 6, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that plaintiff Zenun Ramaj's accident was proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The evidence established that defendants failed to provide an adequate safety device protecting plaintiff from falling into a 7
In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact. That there was no other witness to the accident does not bar judgment in plaintiff's favor (see Dyszkiewicz v City of New York, 194 AD3d 444, 445 [1st Dept 2021]). Although plaintiff's testimony that the covering was not secured to the ground was contradicted by a coworker who testified that the covering was secured with nails, this inconsistency does not raise a material issue of fact as to whether the trench covering failed as a safety device (see Ortiz v Burke Ave. Realty, Inc., 126 AD3d 577, 578 [1st Dept 2015]).
We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Moulton, J.P., Friedman, González, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.