Ramaj v. Franciosa Complex, LLC

<div>Ramaj v Franciosa Complex, LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 02222

<div> skip to main content </div>

<div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div>

<div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div>

<nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Ramaj v Franciosa Complex, LLC</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 02222</p> <p>April 14, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, First Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>Zenun Ramaj et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,</p> <p>v</p> <p>Franciosa Complex, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Green Castle A. Mgmt. Corp. et al., Defendants. And A Third-Party Action</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered: April 14, 2026</p> <p>Index No. 20363/19|Appeal No. 6351|Case No. 2024-05924|</p> <p>Before: Moulton, J.P., Friedman, González, Shulman, Rosado, JJ. </p> <div> <p>Peirce &amp; Salvato PLLC, White Plains (Richard A. Salvato of counsel), for appellant.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchel J. Danziger, J.), entered September 6, 2024, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.</p> <p>Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing that plaintiff Zenun Ramaj's accident was proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The evidence established that defendants failed to provide an adequate safety device protecting plaintiff from falling into a 7½-foot deep trench when the wood planking covering the trench broke (<i>see Devlin v AECOM</i>, 224 AD3d 437, 438 [1st Dept 2024]; <i>Rubio v New York Proton Mgt., LLC</i>, 192 AD3d 438, 439 [1st Dept 2021]; <i>see also</i> <i>Palumbo v Citigroup Tech., Inc.</i>, 240 AD3d 455, 456 [1st Dept 2025]).</p> <p>In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact. That there was no other witness to the accident does not bar judgment in plaintiff's favor (<i>see Dyszkiewicz v City of New York</i>, 194 AD3d 444, 445 [1st Dept 2021]). Although plaintiff's testimony that the covering was not secured to the ground was contradicted by a coworker who testified that the covering was secured with nails, this inconsistency does not raise a material issue of fact as to whether the trench covering failed as a safety device (<i>see</i> <i>Ortiz v Burke Ave. Realty, Inc.</i>, 126 AD3d 577, 578 [1st Dept 2015]).</p> <p>We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them unavailing.</p> <p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.</p> <p>ENTERED: April 14, 2026</p> </div>

<div> <footer> <div> <p>Court Decisions</p> All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search </div> <div> <p>Resources</p> RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting &amp; Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index </div> <div> <p>About</p> About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter </div> <div> <p>Quick Contact Info</p> <p>17 Lodge Street</p> <p>Albany, NY 12207</p> <p>Phone: (518) 453-6900</p> </div> </footer> </div> <div> <p>Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.</p> </div>

</div>