Marla Miller Ostrover, Partner

Marla Miller Ostrover Obtains Summary Judgment in Supreme Court, Queens County

Marla Miller Ostrover won summary judgment dismissing the third-party action and all of plaintiff’s Labor Law claims in Flores v. GPI-M&J Joint Venture, Greenman Pedersen Inc., Judlau Contracting Inc. & GRB Environmental Services Inc. v. Coastal Environmental Group Inc. (Index number 712926/2017).

The 44-year old plaintiff was an employee of our client, Coastal, cleaning a portion of the Queens Midtown Tunnel with a power hose as part of the Queens Midtown Tunnel Rehabilitation project.  The plaintiff claims that the hose that he was using was jerked back by his supervisor, causing him injury.  Thereafter, an employee of GPI-M&J Joint Venture allegedly shook the plaintiff, worsening his injuries. The plaintiff asserted claims of general negligence as against the defendants, as well as Labor Law Section 200, 240(1) and 241(6) claims. As a result of the alleged accident, the plaintiff claims to have sustained serious injuries and did not return to work (L4-L5 and L5-S1 spinal stenosis secondary to herniated disc and lateral recess stenosis, radiculitis and left foot drop, laminectomy with decompression at L5-S1, spinal fusion at L4-5 and L5-S1, anterior lumbar discectomy at L4-5 with decompression of L4 nerve roots, L5-S1 discectomy with decompression of L5 nerve roots, application of spacer at L4-5, L5-S1 and T6-7 and insertion and removal of a spinal cord stimulator). 

Supreme Court, Queens County Judge Ulysses B. Leverett dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim as the defendants did not supervise direct or control the means and methods of plaintiff’s work.  His Honor dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim finding that the provisions relied upon by plaintiff did not apply to the facts of the case.  Finally, plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim was dismissed as the plaintiff was not subject to any gravity related risk.  Indemnification claims against our client were dismissed as well.  The only claim that remains is plaintiff’s negligence claim against GPI-M&J Joint Venture, whose employee purportedly shook the plaintiff.