Keith is a shareholder in the Casualty Department and Co-Chair of the New York Construction & Labor Law practice. As an insurance defense litigator, he devotes his practice to premises liability, automobile liability and New York State Labor Law matters. He also has experience defending property damage and construction defect claims.
Keith also has experience assisting small businesses with proactive claim solutions.
He graduated from Long Island University in 2003 with honors and earned his juris doctor from CUNY Law School in 2006 where he was a member of law review.
Outside of the office he enjoys spending his time with his wife and two children, watching the Mets and running.
Results
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Second Department Issues Strong Decision Regarding Identification of Falling Objects for a Labor Law 240(1) Claim
November 3, 2026
Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a non-delegable duty and absolute liability upon owners and general contractors in cases involving a height related or elevation risk. Longstanding case-law dictates that this applies to both “falling work” and “falling object cases” (see New York Court of Appeals case Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assoc., 96 NY2d 259, 267 [2001]). In a recent July 2026 case, Rolka v Neelam Constr. Corp. 2026 NY Slip Op 04335 [251 AD3d 750], the plaintiff was injured while working on a scaffold and picking up debris, when an object struck him in the back of the head. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment in Queens Supreme Court and the motion was granted, which led to the appeal. Upon examination the Second Department reversed and found triable issues of fact because the original submissions did not show exactly what struck the plaintiff, or where it came from. The Court held that there were issues of fact whether the object struck plaintiff because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute. This case highlights that the plaintiff alleging a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1) must be specific in their submission as to how the falling object was the result of the lack of proper safety devices and protections.
Case Law Alerts
Labor Law § 241(6) Claim Fails as Court Finds Excavator‑Safety Provision Not Sufficiently Specific
July 20, 2026
In order to successfully invoke liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the plaintiff must plead and prove a violation of a specific conduct-regulating provision of the Industrial Code of the State of New York. This statute imposes a non-delegable duty upon owners and contractors regardless of whether they exercise control. While the plaintiff does not have to prove actual negligence, they must show that a specific conduct-regulating provision of the Industrial Code was violated and that the violation constituted a departure from reasonable care and was a proximate cause of the accident. Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 503-55 (1993). In Mann v. Mezuyon, LLC, et al., 2026 WL 1462931, 2026 N.Y. Slip. Op. 03257 (Court of Appeals May 26, 2026), the plaintiff was struck by the boom of a nearby excavator and alleged a violation of Section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code. This Section states: “[p]ersons shall not be suffered or permitted to work in any area where they may be struck or endangered by any excavation equipment or by any material being dislodged or falling from such equipment.” The Appellate Divisions were spilt as to whether section was sufficiently specific to support a 241(6) claim- the First, Third and Fourth Departments held it was not specific enough while the Second Department held otherwise. The Court of Appeals in Mann eliminated this split and held that the section is not specific enough. The court’s rationale was that the section did not provide any action to address the safety concern in the provision. This decision is significant because it eliminates Labor Law 241(6) liability based upon an alleged violation of Section 23-4.2(k) of the Industrial Code.
