The opinion
Campuzano v AECOM, Tishman Constr. Corp. of
N.Y.
2026 NY Slip Op 30982(U)
March 16, 2026
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 152556/2021
Judge: Sabrina Kraus
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1525562021.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX036_TO.html[03/24/2026 3:45:43 PM]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 12:58 PM INDEX NO. 152556/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. SABRINA KRAUS PART 57M
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 152556/2021
FRANCISCO CAMPUZANO,
MOTION DATE 12/07/2025
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 003
-v-
AECOM, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION OF
DECISION + ORDER ON
NEW YORK, OAC 550 OWNER LLC,
MOTION
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 1, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76,
77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88
were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY .
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to the Labor Law seeking damages for personal
injuries arising out of an October 16, 2020, workplace accident on the premises of a building
owned by OAC 550 Owner LLC (“OAC”).
FACTS
The following information derives from the testimony of the corporate representative of
AECOM, Tishman Construction Corporation of New York (“AECOM”).
OAC was the owner of a building located at 550 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022
(the “Building”). OAC entered into an agreement with AECOM for AECOM to serve as the
project manager and general contractor for a demolition at the Building (“Demolition”).
The following information derives from Plaintiff’s testimony.
Plaintiff was employed by an entity named PAL to assist in the Demolition at the
Building. On October 16, 2020, Plaintiff was working on scaffolding outside of the Building to
152556/2021 CAMPUZANO, FRANCISCO vs. AECOM, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION Page 1 of 7
Motion No. 003
1 of 7
[* 1]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 12:58 PM INDEX NO. 152556/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
cut and remove the windows prior to the Demolition. Plaintiff and his team of workers had cut a
window out of the Building’s façade (the “Window”) and attached the Window to a pulley with
ropes. The pulley system was operated manually by Plaintiff’s other PAL coworkers, and there
were no other mechanical or electronic tools being used to lower the Window. Plaintiff estimated
that the Window weighed around 600 lbs.
In order to guide and support the Window’s descent, Plaintiff was standing next to the
Window with his hands placed underneath it. As the Window was being lowered, the ropes got
stuck, and the descent stopped. The Window was hovering around two feet above Plaintiff when
it suddenly fell and struck his chest, causing him to fall backwards and hit his lower back onto
the guardrail of the scaffold.
PENDING MOTION
On January 8, 2026, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment as to liability on his Labor
Law § 240(1) claim as against OAC and AECOM (NYSCEF Doc No. 72 [mot. seq. 003]).
The motion was marked submitted on March 12, 2026, and the Court reserved decision. 1
The Court grants the motion for the reasons set forth below.
DISCUSSION
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy reserved for cases where “no material and triable
issue of fact is presented” (Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404
[1957]). To prevail on summary judgment, the movant must establish prima facie entitlement to
judgment as a matter of law, tendering evidence in admissible form demonstrating the absence of
any triable issues of fact (CPLR § 3212(b); Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 33 NY3d
20, 25–26 [2019]).
1
The parties submitted a stipulation to adjourn the motion on March 12, 2026, which was rejected by the Court.
152556/2021 CAMPUZANO, FRANCISCO vs. AECOM, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION Page 2 of 7
Motion No. 003
2 of 7
[* 2]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 12:58 PM INDEX NO. 152556/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
When the movant meets this burden, summary judgment will be denied only when the
nonmovant produces evidence in admissible form demonstrating the existence of triable issues of
fact (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). However, “[m]ere conclusions,
expressions of hope, or unsubstantiated allegations or assertions are insufficient” to defeat
summary judgment (Justinian Capital SPC v WestLB AG, 28 NY3d 160, 168 [2016] [alteration
in original]). Courts view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and accord the
nonmovant “the benefit of every reasonable inference” (Negri v Stop & Shop, Inc., 65 NY2d
625, 626 [1985]).
The Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Labor Law § 240(1) provides:
All contractors and owners and their agents . . . in the . . . demolition . . . of a
building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for
the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers,
blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so
constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so
employed.
Section 240(1) imposes “absolute liability” against the owner and general contractor when a
breach of the statute proximately causes injury to a worker engaged in a protected task (Melber v
6333 Main St., Inc., 91 NY2d 759, 762 [1998]). Plaintiff’s work falls under the ambit of Section
240(1) as he was engaged in a task that was ancillary to and necessary for the Demolition of the
Building (see Prats v Port Auth., 100 NY2d 878, 882 [2003]).
Section 240(1) applies to both “falling worker” and “falling object” cases (Narducci v
Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]). The Court of Appeals explains that the
relevant hazards in falling object cases are:
those related to the effects of gravity where protective devices are called for either
because of a difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower
level or a difference between the elevation level where the worker is positioned and
152556/2021 CAMPUZANO, FRANCISCO vs. AECOM, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION Page 3 of 7
Motion No. 003
3 of 7
[* 3]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 12:58 PM INDEX NO. 152556/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
the higher level of the materials or load being hoisted or secured. (Rocovich v
Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514 [1991]).
The hazard posed by the Window was related to the effect of gravity as the weight and height of
the Window “created a significant, harmful force, even over the course of a relatively short
descent, that warranted securing for the purpose of the undertaking” (see Cruz v PMG Constr.
Group LLC, 236 AD3d 402, 403 [1st Dept 2025]).
To establish falling object liability under Section 240(1), the plaintiff must show that (1)
the plaintiff was struck by a falling object, (2) the object required securing for the purpose of the
undertaking and (3) the lack of adequate protection failed to shield against the falling of such
object which proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries (Torres-Quito v 1711 LLC, 227 AD3d
113, 116 [1st Dept 2024], citing Mayorquin v Carriage House Owner’s Corp., 202 AD3d 541,
541–42 [1st Dept 2022]). Such adequate protection must be that “of a safety device of the kind
enumerated in the statute” (Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 268 [2001]; see
Honeyman v Curiosity Works, Inc., 154 AD3d 820, 821 [2d Dept 2017] [holding that a pin-and-
bracket system holding together an exhibition booth was not a statutory safety device because it
was not meant to protect the plaintiff while he worked]).
The adequate safety devices enumerated by the statute are “scaffolding, hoists, stays,
ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so
constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed” (Labor
Law § 240(1)). Plaintiff, relying on his expert report, argues that he and his coworkers should
have been provided with a crane and a pulley system operated by an electric winch such that the
window would have been properly secured and gradually lowered (NYSCEF Doc No. 76, at 4–
5). Plaintiff’s proposed safety device falls under Section 240(1) as it involves a pulley system
152556/2021 CAMPUZANO, FRANCISCO vs. AECOM, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION Page 4 of 7
Motion No. 003
4 of 7
[* 4]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 12:58 PM INDEX NO. 152556/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
that would have given adequate protection to workers so employed in the removal and lowering
of the Window.
Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1)
claim as he makes out a prima facie case that he was struck by the falling of the Window, the
Window should have been properly secured for the purposes of his task and the failure to provide
him and his coworkers with a crane, electric pulley, and winch system proximately caused his
injury (see Torres-Quito v 1711 LLC, 227 AD3d at 116).
Defendants fail to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition. Defendants cite three accident
reports that appear to contradict Plaintiff’s testimony. The accident reports prepared by W5
Group LLC and PAL both stated that Plaintiff injured his back as he was trying to lift up the
Window after it had gotten stuck (NYSCEF Doc No. 83; NYSCEF Doc No. 84). The accident
report prepared by Tishman stated that Plaintiff strained his back while trying to lower the
window but does not otherwise specify the strain’s circumstances (NYSCEF Doc No. 85, at 3).
The First Department has held in Biaca-Neto v Boston Road II Housing Development
Corp. that triable issues of fact exist where a Plaintiff’s sworn testimony contradicts other
documentary reports of an accident that are supported by sworn testimony (see Biaca-Neto, 176
AD3d 1, 4–5, 6 [1st Dept 2019]). Unlike Biaca-Neto, however, the only accident report here that
is supported by sworn testimony is the Tishman report, but the person who prepared that report
testified that he had no memory of (1) the Plaintiff, (2) the incident, (3) the circumstances in
which he prepared the report (4) why he left the signature block of the report blank or (5)
whether the accident witness with whom he spoke was a man or a woman (NYSCEF Doc No.
75, 12–16, 19–20). The Tishman report is also unclear as to how exactly Plaintiff strained his
back (see NYSCEF Doc No. 85, at 3), and Plaintiff’s testimony directly contradicted the account
152556/2021 CAMPUZANO, FRANCISCO vs. AECOM, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION Page 5 of 7
Motion No. 003
5 of 7
[* 5]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 12:58 PM INDEX NO. 152556/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
of the accident as described in the Tishman report (NYSCEF Doc No. 86, at 251–52). The other
two “unsworn accident report[s] relied upon by [Defendants] to show an inconsistency in
[Plaintiff’s] account of the accident” are similarly “insufficient to raise an issue of fact” as the
reports are “inadmissible hearsay” and “[Defendants] provide no excuse for their failure to
tender the report in inadmissible form” (see Kristo v Board of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 134
AD3d 550, 551 [1st Dept 2015] [reversing denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on
Section 240(1)]).
Equally unavailing is Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff was provided with an adequate
safety device because he was wearing a harness and other fall protection equipment (NYSCEF
Doc No. 82, at 9). Plaintiff’s being provided with proper fall protection equipment is immaterial
as Plaintiff’s injury did not occur due to Plaintiff’s falling off the scaffold but the Window falling
and striking him. Further, Plaintiff’s subjective belief that there was no structural defect in the
rope-and-pulley system on the day of the incident does not raise a triable issue of fact as to
whether he was provided with an adequate safety device to secure the Window.
Defendants’ reliance on the integral-to-the-work defense is also misplaced as the doctrine
is a defense to a Labor Law § 241(6) claim, not a Labor Law § 240(1) claim (Wilson v AC 320
Hotel Partners, LLC, 238 AD3d 581, 582 [1st Dept 2025]). Even assuming the integral-to-the-
work defense applied in a Section § 240(1) context, Plaintiff’s own subjective belief that the
pulley system used on the day of the incident was the “only way” to have done the work does not
defeat summary judgment as Plaintiff’s expert report stated that there was indeed a safer crane,
pulley and winch system that would have prevented Plaintiff’s injury.
Finally, Defendants argue unpersuasively that Plaintiff’s expert report is insufficient to
establish entitlement to summary judgment because Plaintiff’s expert had no personal knowledge
152556/2021 CAMPUZANO, FRANCISCO vs. AECOM, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION Page 6 of 7
Motion No. 003
6 of 7
[* 6]
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/16/2026 12:58 PM INDEX NO. 152556/2021
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 90 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/16/2026
of the events leading up to Plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff’s expert report, however, was not proffered
to prove that the Plaintiff was injured due to the Window having fallen onto him. Plaintiff cites
the report to demonstrate that the rope-and-pulley configuration that was used on the day of the
accident was inadequate for the task at hand and that an alternative crane, pulley and electric
winch system would have prevented his injury. Again, Defendants fail to offer their own expert
report or any other evidence raising a triable issue of fact as to whether the rope-and-pulley
system used by Plaintiff on the date of the accident was indeed adequate.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s motion (mot. seq. 003) is granted as to liability on his
Labor Law § 240(1) claim; and it is further
ORDERED that, within twenty (20) days from entry of this order, Plaintiff shall serve a
copy of this order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the General Clerk’s Office (60 Centre
Street, Room 119, New York, NY 10007); and it is further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk shall be made in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Protocol on Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for
Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the “E-Filing” page on the court’s website at the
address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh).
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
3/16/2026
DATE SABRINA KRAUS, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
□
X GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
□
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: X INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
152556/2021 CAMPUZANO, FRANCISCO vs. AECOM, TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION Page 7 of 7
Motion No. 003
7 of 7
[* 7]