Sean Nicholson v. Structure Tone Inc, Pavarini Construction Co Inc, Pavarini McGovern LLC
Case Name
Sean Nicholson v. Structure Tone Inc, Pavarini Construction Co Inc, Pavarini McGovern LLC
Type of Injury
BACK AND ELBOW INJURIES
Occupation
Union-affiliated Carpenter
Location
Bronx, New York
Verdict
The parties negotiated a pretrial settlement. The first-party defendants’ insurer tendered its policy, which provided $1 million of coverage, and Commodore Construction’s insurer agreed to pay $2.9 million, from a policy that provided $10 million of coverage. Thus, the settlement totaled $3.9 million.
Verdict Amount
$3,900,000
Case Details
On March 15, 2010, plaintiff Sean Nicholson, a union-affiliated carpenter in his late 30s, worked at a renovation site that was located at 1290 Sixth Ave., in Manhattan. Nicholson was installing devices that supported a door. During the course of that task, he fell off of a scaffold. He fell a distance of about four feet, and he landed on a floor. He claimed that he sustained injuries of his back and an elbow.
Nicholson sued the renovation project’s general contractor, Structure Tone Inc.; two related entities, Pavarini Construction Co. Inc. and Pavarini McGovern, LLC; and the premises’ owners, 555 1290 Holdings LLC, HWA 1290 III LLC, HWA 1290 IV LLC and HWA 1290 V LLC. Nicholson alleged that the defendants violated the New York State Labor Law.
The defendants impleaded Nicholson’s employer, Commodore Construction Group. The first-party defendants alleged that Commodore Construction controlled and directed Nicholson’s work functions.
Plaintiff’s counsel discontinued the claims against Pavarini Construction and Pavarini McGovern. The matter proceeded against the remaining defendants.
Nicholson claimed that the scaffold was not secure. As such, he contended that the device did not provide a safe means of performing the work that he had undertaken. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the incident stemmed from an elevation-related hazard, as defined by Labor Law § 240(1), and that Nicholson was not provided the proper, safe equipment that is a requirement of the statute.
Plaintiff’s counsel moved for summary judgment of liability, and the motion was granted. The matter proceeded to damages.
Disclaimer: The information on this website and blog is for general informational purposes only and is not professional advice. We make no guarantees of accuracy or completeness. We disclaim all liability for errors, omissions, or reliance on this content. Always consult a qualified professional for specific guidance.
RECENT POSTS
