SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES
New York Case Summaries
Guzman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
New York Supreme Court, New York County
2025 NY Slip Op 33761(U)
Decided: October 6, 2025
Court enters summary judgment for Plaintiff in action brought pursuant to Section 240(1) of the Labor Law.
Background
Plaintiff, a construction worker, fell off a scissor lift while performing fireproofing during the construction of a headhouse connector at La Guardia Airport. He filed suit claiming, among other things, that his fall constituted the type of elevation-related hazard designed to be prevented by Section 240(1) of the Labor Law. Section 240(1) pertains to gravity-related accidents, such as a worker falling from a height or being struck by an inadequately secured falling object. The statute imposes absolute liability upon owners, contractors and their agents where a breach of this statutory duty proximately causes an injury. Here, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants failed to provide him with proper protection, failed to provide a safe place to work, failed to provide safety devices, and failed to provide adequate equipment to prevent him from suffering injuries. Plaintiff further claimed that the scissor lift fell due to a piece of plywood on the floor.
Plaintiff and Defendants filed Cross-Motions for summary judgment. Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s own actions represented the sole proximate cause of the accident. They also denied the existence of any debris that caused the scissor lift to tip, arguing instead that the lift fell because the length of the hose was too short due to Plaintiff’s own mistake. Defendants relied on Plaintiff’s statement that he chose to use his eye to determine the length of the hose. For his part, Plaintiff argued that Defendants did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the hose was too short and that its length caused the scissor lift to tip.
Holding
The Court denied the Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment and granted Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion. The Court found that Defendants failed to provide sufficient proof to support their claim that Plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the tipping of the scissor lift. The Court found instead that Plaintiff established prima facie evidence that the scissor lift, a safety device within the meaning of the statute, failed to provide him with proper protection against the elevation-related hazard of falling. The Court further found that the tipping of the scissor lift was the cause of the alleged injuries.
Questions about this case can be directed to Meagan Gabriel at (646) 298-3630 or mgabriel@tthlaw.com.
Schaik v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
New York Supreme Court, New York County
2025 NY Slip Op 33803(U)
Decided: October 2, 2025
Court dismisses seven of eleven claims brought by Plaintiff following his purchase of a new vehicle.
Background
Plaintiff purchased a 2024 Mercedes-Benz ESQ 580 X3 from Defendant. The purchase was made pursuant to a Vehicle Purchase Agreement (“VPA”) containing standard warranties. Plaintiff paid additional sums for a supplemental warranty and for a pre-paid maintenance agreement with Defendant. Plaintiff alleged the vehicle began malfunctioning soon after delivery. He alleged failures of the navigation system, brakes and sunroof. Plaintiff ultimately filed suit, raising eleven causes of action, those being: (1) breach of the VPA; (2) breach of pre-paid maintenance; (3) fraud and non-disclosure; (4) deceptive business practices under GBL § 349; (5) product liability/design defect; (6) product liability/manufacturing defect; (7) product liability/marketing defect; (8) breach of warranty of merchantability; (9) breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose; (10) negligence; and (11) violation of the Lemon Law. Defendant moved to dismiss claims four through seven and nine through eleven.
Holding
Defendant’s Motion was granted in its entirety. The Court found that the fourth cause of action, deceptive practices, failed because private contract disputes are unique to the parties and do not fall within the ambit of GBL § 349. The Court further stated that Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant failed to furnish him or the public at large with all material information about the vehicle, such that he or the public would have been misled into making the purchase. As for the fifth, sixth and seventh causes of action, sounding in products liability, the claims failed because Plaintiff, a downstream purchaser from the manufacturer, did not sustain personal injuries as a result of the alleged defects, and suffered only economic loss in the form of damage to the vehicle, which losses were covered by the VPA and the additional warranties and maintenance Plaintiff purchased from Defendant. As for count nine, the Court found that the Complaint failed to state a cause of action for breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose. The Court also found the tenth cause of action, sounding in negligence, to be duplicative of the breach of contract causes of action. Lastly, the eleventh cause of action, brought under the Lemon Law, was dismissed as to the Defendant dealership because it is not a manufacturer and thus not subject to GBL § 198-a(c)(1).
Questions about this case can be directed to Meagan Gabriel at (646) 298-3630 or mgabriel@tthlaw.com.