- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- Antunez v. Denoia
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03417
Background
Plaintiff Santos Antunez commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained while renovating a bathroom in a house owned by defendant Carmine Denoia. According to plaintiff’s testimony, his employer (the defendant’s contractor) directed him to demolish a wall in the bathroom. There was a hole in the bathroom floor, described as six to eight inches wide and approximately five to six inches from the wall he was instructed to demolish. As plaintiff pulled a piece of sheetrock to detach it from the wall, it fell toward him, causing his left foot to slip forward and fall into the hole.
The complaint asserted causes of action under Labor Law Section 200 and common-law negligence, among others. After plaintiff filed a note of issue, defendant made a renewed motion for summary judgment dismissing these claims. Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Joseph Farneti, J.), granted those branches of the renewed motion. Plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and denied those branches of the defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment. The Court held that the defendant’s submissions failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the hole in the floor was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous in light of all surrounding circumstances.
The panel applied the standard from Lloyd v. Liberty Beer Depot, Inc., 241 AD3d 530, 531, recognizing that “some hazards, although discernable, may be hazardous because of their nature and location.” The plaintiff’s own deposition testimony, which the defendant submitted in support of its motion, raised triable issues of fact about the hole’s dangerousness. The Court also cited Kane v. Peter M. Moore Construction Co., Inc., 145 AD3d 864, 868, in finding that the defendant failed to satisfy its burden.
Takeaways
This ruling is an important clarification of the “open and obvious” defense in Labor Law Section 200 premises-liability cases. Even where a hazard is visible, it may still be “inherently dangerous” depending on its location relative to the work being performed and the surrounding circumstances. A hole in the floor near a wall being demolished presents exactly the type of location-dependent hazard that precludes summary judgment, because the worker’s required activity may make avoidance impracticable regardless of the hazard’s visibility.
The decision also illustrates the principle that a defendant’s own submissions—here, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony—can raise factual issues that defeat the movant’s prima facie showing.
Why It Matters
Construction accident litigators should take note of this decision’s emphasis on context-dependent hazard analysis. Property owners cannot simply point to a worker’s awareness of a dangerous condition to escape liability under Labor Law Section 200 when the nature and location of the hazard make it inherently dangerous in light of the required work. This ruling will be particularly useful to plaintiffs opposing summary judgment in renovation and demolition cases where known floor conditions interact with mandated work activities.