- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Jun Lim Chang v. 37 Plaza LLC
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03384
Background
Plaintiff Jun Lim Chang, now deceased, was injured in a construction accident. The decedent’s estate brought claims under Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6) against defendants 37 Plaza LLC and Ransd Design, Inc. A central factual dispute was whether Ransd was the general contractor at the time of the accident. Ransd’s owner submitted an affidavit stating that Ransd was no longer the general contractor and was limited to general carpentry in a different part of the building when the accident occurred. However, this affidavit contradicted the owner’s earlier deposition testimony, in which he stated that Ransd was the general contractor at the time of the accident. Ransd moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against it. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law section 240(1) and section 241(6) claims predicated on violations of Industrial Code sections 23-1.7(b) and 23-1.16(b). The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff’s motion and denied Ransd’s motion, with modification. Ransd appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously modified the order only to the extent of granting Ransd summary judgment dismissing a cross-claim for common-law indemnification brought by H Point Inc., and otherwise affirmed. The Court held that Ransd was properly identified as the general contractor at the time of the accident for purposes of Labor Law liability. The affidavit by Ransd’s owner contradicting his own deposition testimony was disregarded as creating only a feigned issue of fact, citing Daly v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 206 AD3d 467 (1st Dept 2022). The Court further upheld the grant of partial summary judgment on the Labor Law section 240(1) and section 241(6) claims, finding that the plaintiff established the necessary elements of liability under both provisions.
Takeaways
A party cannot defeat summary judgment by submitting an affidavit that directly contradicts the party’s own prior deposition testimony. Such a contradictory affidavit will be disregarded as creating only a feigned issue of fact. For Labor Law purposes, the determination of general contractor status is based on the evidence in the record, and a party’s attempt to recharacterize its role through a post-deposition affidavit will not be credited. General contractors who exercise supervisory control at a construction site bear statutory liability under Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6) for injuries resulting from inadequate safety protections.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the well-established rule against feigned issues of fact in summary judgment practice. Construction defendants who attempt to avoid Labor Law liability by retroactively disavowing their general contractor status through affidavits contradicting earlier sworn testimony will find their efforts rejected by the courts. The case also demonstrates the broad sweep of Labor Law section 240(1), which imposes strict liability on general contractors for gravity-related construction accidents regardless of their actual negligence. Construction companies should carefully consider the implications of their deposition testimony, as admissions regarding supervisory authority and general contractor status will bind them throughout the litigation.