In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided a case involving a construction injury that has implications for liability under Labor Law. The court ruled on May 21, 2026, in the case of Perez v. Kew Gardens Dev. Corp., Index No. 453196/17, Appeal No. 6704. The decision affects both the plaintiff, Ronny Carvajal Perez, and the defendants, Kew Gardens Development Corp. and NYC Elegant Improvements, Inc.
The case centers around a construction accident that led to Perez filing a complaint against Kew Gardens Development Corp. and NYC Elegant Improvements, Inc. The court's ruling clarifies the responsibilities of contractors and their liability in construction-related injuries, particularly under New York's Labor Law.
The dispute began when Perez, who was working on a construction site, suffered injuries that he attributed to unsafe working conditions. He claimed that NYC Elegant Improvements, Inc. was responsible for the accident under Labor Law § 240(1), which protects workers from gravity-related risks. However, the defendants argued that they were not liable because they did not have the necessary supervisory authority over the work being performed.
The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court, New York County, initially ruled on October 17, 2025. The court denied NYC Elegant Improvements, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint against it. Perez also filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law claim, which the court dismissed as academic.
The Appellate Division's ruling reversed the lower court's decision regarding NYC Elegant Improvements, Inc. The court found that the defendant was not a proper party under Labor Law § 240(1). The judges on the panel included Moulton, J.P., González, O'Neill Levy, Chan, and Hagler.
The court ruled, "The evidence establishes that defendant was not a general contractor or statutory agent with supervisory authority and control over plaintiff's work."
This ruling is significant because it clarifies the criteria for determining liability under Labor Law for construction injuries. The court noted that the project manager for NYC Elegant Improvements testified that the company was not retained as a general contractor and had no control over Perez's work. The court emphasized that mere listing as a general contractor on a work permit is insufficient to establish that role.
The Appellate Division also highlighted that the accident stemmed from the means and methods of the work, specifically the equipment used. Since the evidence showed that NYC Elegant Improvements did not perform any work at the site, the court dismissed the claims against them under both common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200.
This ruling may have broader implications for construction workers and contractors in New York. It reinforces the necessity for clear documentation of roles and responsibilities on construction sites. Workers may need to ensure that those they are working for have the appropriate oversight and control to establish liability in the event of an accident.
Moving forward, this decision may influence how similar cases are litigated, particularly regarding the responsibilities of contractors. Workers and their legal representatives may need to pay closer attention to the relationships between various parties involved in construction projects to determine liability effectively.
As for what’s next, the parties may consider appealing the ruling, although details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeal. There is no indication of related cases pending that would directly affect this decision.