In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York reversed a lower court's decision that had granted summary judgment to a construction worker injured on the job. The case, Veliu v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., revolves around a construction site accident that left the worker, Imberson Veliu, with serious injuries. This decision impacts not only Veliu but also sets a precedent for how construction site safety is managed and litigated in New York.
The court's ruling, issued on September 22, 2026, highlights the complexities of Labor Law § 240(1), which is designed to protect construction workers from gravity-related hazards. The case has drawn attention due to the conflicting accounts of the accident and the implications for worker safety on construction sites.
The parties involved in the case are Imberson Veliu, the plaintiff, and Verizon New York Inc., the defendant. Veliu was employed as a foreman and “pitman” for De-Bar Company Construction Corporation when the accident occurred. He was responsible for directing a backhoe operator while working in a trench at a construction site. The dispute arose when Veliu claimed he was injured when a large piece of concrete curb fell from the backhoe and struck his leg. He sought summary judgment on his claim under Labor Law § 240(1), arguing that safety devices were either absent or inadequate at the time of the incident.
The case reached the appellate court after the Supreme Court granted Veliu's motion for summary judgment, which Verizon contested. The appellate court was tasked with reviewing the evidence and determining whether there were sufficient factual disputes to warrant a trial. The court examined the testimonies and affidavits from both sides, which presented conflicting narratives about how the accident occurred.
The appellate court ultimately ruled against Veliu's claim for summary judgment. The judges noted that there were significant issues of fact regarding the circumstances of the injury. The court stated, "There are issues of fact as to how his injuries occurred." They pointed out that a coworker, Michael Castellano, provided an affidavit that contradicted Veliu's account, claiming that the curb did not fall from the backhoe but rather detached from the underlying curb and sidewalk during excavation work. This discrepancy raised questions about the credibility of the witnesses and the exact cause of the accident.
Additionally, the court highlighted that even if Veliu's version of events were accepted, there were still questions about whether he was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court referenced the possibility that Veliu failed to use available safety devices, such as lumber braces, which could have prevented the accident. The judges emphasized that an injured worker's negligence could only be deemed the sole cause of an accident if they knowingly disregarded safety protocols.
The ruling was made by a panel of judges including Webber, Gesmer, Rodriguez, Pitt-Burke, and O'Neill Levy. Judge Rodriguez dissented, arguing that the lower court's conclusion that a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) was a proximate cause of Veliu's injuries should have been upheld. Rodriguez pointed out that both versions of the accident involved a violation of the law, which is designed to protect workers from such hazards.
This decision has significant implications for construction workers and employers in New York. It underscores the importance of maintaining safety standards on job sites and clarifies the responsibilities of both workers and employers under Labor Law § 240(1). The ruling suggests that workers must be vigilant about using available safety equipment and that employers have a duty to ensure that such equipment is accessible and properly utilized.
Going forward, this ruling may influence how similar cases are handled in the future. It emphasizes that courts will closely examine the facts surrounding workplace accidents and the responsibilities of both employees and employers. The decision could lead to more rigorous enforcement of safety protocols on construction sites, potentially reducing the number of injuries.
As for what’s next, it is unclear whether Veliu will appeal this decision. The dissenting opinion from Judge Rodriguez may provide grounds for further legal action. Additionally, there may be related cases pending that could further explore the nuances of Labor Law § 240(1) and its application in various construction scenarios.