This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
An injured worker may win on liability without a trial even if no one saw the accident, as long as nothing in the record contradicts his account or raises a question about his credibility. Here, the First Department modified the order to deny a worker’s motion for summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1), because a sign-out sheet, 17 statements from people at the project, a biomechanics expert, and three examining doctors, taken together, raised questions whether the accident happened at all, whether it happened as he described, and whether it caused his injuries.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- October 20, 2026
- Case
- Gonzalez v Chatsworth Bldrs. LLC
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06063
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff alleged that while he was transporting over 300 pounds of construction material on an overloaded A-frame cart, the material and the cart flipped over and fell on him, injuring his neck and back. He moved for summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law 240(1) claim against three defendants. In opposition, they submitted a project sign-out sheet from the date of the accident, indicating that he stated he did not suffer any unreported injuries that day; 17 statements from people present at the project, all denying that they witnessed the accident, knew of it at the time, or saw evidence that he was injured; a biomechanics expert’s affirmation; and reports from three doctors who performed independent medical examinations of him. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion, and the defendants appealed.
The holding
The First Department unanimously modified the order to deny the motion. His testimony made out a prima facie case, but the defendants “raised a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s accident occurred, or, if it occurred, whether it occurred as plaintiff described and whether his injuries were causally related to the accident” (2026 NY Slip Op 06063, *1). The court explained: “It would be immaterial that the accident was unwitnessed if there is nothing in the record that contradicts plaintiff’s version of the accident or raises an issue as to his credibility” (id.). Here, the experts “all opined that plaintiff did not experience the acute trauma that a heavy load falling on him likely would have caused,” and “Defendants’ evidence, taken together, is sufficient to raise an issue of fact precluding summary judgment” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Broughton v 553 Marcy Ave. Owners LLC (238 AD3d 536) and Guiterrez v Turner Towers Tenants Corp. (202 AD3d 437).
What it means
- A worker’s own testimony can be enough to win on liability, even if no one else saw the accident, as long as nothing in the record contradicts it or raises a question about the worker’s credibility.
- The court relied on the defense evidence “taken together.” It did not hold that any one piece, such as the biomechanics opinion, would have necessarily been enough on its own.
- The claim goes on. Whether the accident happened as he described, and whether it caused his injuries, are now questions for trial.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
This is the third decision on a defense biomechanical opinion in a week (see our entries on Bonilla-Acosta v Max Servs. Corp. and Latazela v Compass Six Owner LLC). In Latazela, the First Department found such an opinion speculative because it disregarded consistent evidence that the worker fell and was hurt. Here, the same court weighed a biomechanics opinion together with a sign-out sheet, 17 statements, and three doctors’ reports. Read together, these decisions seem to draw a line: an expert’s opinion may carry weight when other evidence supports it, and little when it disregards the record. The decision does not say why the sign-out sheet read as it did. But in our experience, workers who are hurt on the job sometimes do not report it right away, hoping the pain will pass. Two lessons. 1. If you are hurt at work, report it that day, to your supervisor and in writing, and answer any sign-out sheet accurately. 2. For lawyers, expect more defendants to challenge whether the accident happened at all, and be ready to answer every piece of that evidence, not just the expert. What is written down on the day of an accident can follow a case to trial.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Labor Law § 240(1). Result: modified.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 20, 2026. Posted October 20, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.