In a significant ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York addressed a personal injury case involving Artur Zhivov, who sustained injuries while working on a renovation project. The court's decision, issued on May 6, 2026, affects both the plaintiff and the defendants, Kings Bay Housing Co., Inc. and Kings Bay Section One Land, LLC, as it clarifies liability under New York's Labor Law.
The case, Zhivov v. Kings Bay Housing Co., Inc. (Docket No. 2024-03258), centers around an incident that occurred in June 2017. Zhivov was performing demolition work in an apartment owned by Kings Bay Housing when he fell from an unsecured A-frame ladder. He claimed that the fall was caused by an uneven floor, leading to his injuries. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against both Kings Bay Housing and Kings Bay Section One, which owns the land beneath the building.
The lawsuit included allegations of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The case progressed through the courts, with Zhivov seeking summary judgment on the issue of liability against Kings Bay Housing, while both defendants sought to dismiss the claims against them.
In an order dated April 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of Kings County ruled partially in favor of Zhivov, granting him summary judgment on the issue of liability regarding Labor Law § 240(1) against Kings Bay Housing. However, the court denied Zhivov's motion for summary judgment against Kings Bay Section One and granted that defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint against it. Kings Bay Housing then appealed the decision, while Zhivov cross-appealed.
The Appellate Division ultimately modified the lower court's order. The court ruled that Zhivov did not meet the burden of proof necessary to establish liability under Labor Law § 240(1) against Kings Bay Housing. The judges stated, "The plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting...his deposition testimony, which demonstrated that he had been working on a ladder when it started shaking, causing him to fall." However, they also noted that the defendants raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether the accident occurred, citing testimony and video evidence that contradicted Zhivov's claims.
The court further explained that a property owner may be liable under the Labor Law, but ownership alone is not sufficient to impose liability. They emphasized that a noncontracting owner must show a connection to the work being performed to be held accountable. The judges concluded that Kings Bay Section One demonstrated it was not liable, as it had no contract for the work and lacked control over the renovation project.
Regarding Kings Bay Housing, the court found that it failed to establish it lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition that contributed to Zhivov's accident. The judges stated, "Here, KB Housing failed to establish, prima facie, that it lacked constructive notice of an allegedly dangerous condition that contributed to the plaintiff's accident." This ruling means that the claims of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 against Kings Bay Housing will continue.
The implications of this ruling are significant for both parties involved in the case. For Zhivov, the court's decision to deny his motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Kings Bay Housing means he must continue to prove his case in court. For Kings Bay Housing, the ruling allows them to continue defending against the claims of negligence and Labor Law violations, which could have financial implications for the cooperative corporation.
This case also sets a precedent regarding the responsibilities of property owners under New York's Labor Law. It clarifies that ownership of a property does not automatically lead to liability for injuries sustained on the premises. The ruling emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a connection between the property owner and the work being performed.
Looking ahead, the parties may consider their options for further legal action. The decision can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but details on any forthcoming appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing. As the case progresses, the outcome will be closely watched by those interested in labor law and personal injury cases in New York.