In a significant ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has reversed a lower court's decision regarding a workplace injury case involving Edilberto Terron-Alcantara and Charlie's Real Estate LLC. The court's decision, made on May 14, 2026, allows Terron-Alcantara to pursue his claim against the real estate company after he was injured by an unsafe angle grinder while on the job. This ruling is crucial as it highlights the responsibilities of employers to maintain safe working conditions and equipment.
Terron-Alcantara, the plaintiff in this case, was injured when an angle grinder he was using kicked back and cut his arm. He argued that the grinder was defective because it was missing a safety guard, violating New York's Labor Law § 241(6). The case was initially filed in the Bronx County Supreme Court, where the lower court denied Terron-Alcantara's motion for partial summary judgment, which would have established liability against Charlie's Real Estate. However, the appellate court found that he had sufficiently proven his case.
The dispute began when Terron-Alcantara, an employee at a construction site, suffered an injury while using an angle grinder. He claimed that the grinder was available for use despite his supervisor instructing him to use a different tool, a sledgehammer. The case reached the appellate court after Terron-Alcantara sought to have the court rule in his favor based on the unsafe condition of the equipment he was required to use.
The Appellate Division's ruling overturned the Bronx Supreme Court's earlier decision. The court stated, "Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as that claim was predicated on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.5(c)(3)." This section of the Industrial Code mandates that equipment must be kept sound and operable, and any damaged equipment should be repaired or removed from the job site immediately.
The court pointed out that Terron-Alcantara's testimony was uncontradicted. He confirmed that the angle grinder was present at the work site and that it lacked a guard. The court noted that the absence of the guard directly contributed to the injury he sustained. Furthermore, the appellate judges emphasized that there was no evidence suggesting that the unsafe grinder had been repaired or removed from the site.
In their decision, the judges—Manzanet-Daniels, Kennedy, Friedman, Gesmer, and Rosado—also addressed the defense put forth by Charlie's Real Estate. The company argued that Terron-Alcantara acted negligently by using the grinder instead of the sledgehammer. However, the court ruled that even if the plaintiff was negligent, it would only constitute comparative negligence, which would not defeat his motion for summary judgment. The court stated, "this at most constitutes comparative negligence, which is insufficient to defeat plaintiff's motion."
The ruling further clarified that the defense of recalcitrance, which applies when a worker ignores safety instructions, was not applicable in this case. The court noted that an instruction from an employer to avoid unsafe equipment does not count as a safety device. The judges concluded that since no adequate safety devices were provided, the employer could not use this defense to avoid liability.
This ruling has significant implications for workplace safety and employer liability in New York. It reinforces the legal expectation that employers must ensure that their equipment is safe and operable. The decision serves as a reminder that workers have the right to a safe working environment and that employers can be held accountable for unsafe conditions that lead to injuries.
Moving forward, this ruling may encourage other workers who have been injured due to unsafe equipment to pursue legal action against their employers. It sets a precedent that emphasizes the importance of adhering to safety regulations and maintaining equipment in proper working order. The decision also highlights the courts' willingness to uphold workers' rights in the face of negligence.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether Charlie's Real Estate will seek further legal recourse. The court's ruling allows Terron-Alcantara to move forward with his claim, but Charlie's may still have options for appeal. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending related cases or the company's next steps.