Cuji v 225 Fourth, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction/demolition site safety and liability under New York Labor Law §§ 200 [codifies owners’/contractors’ duty to provide a safe workplace], 240(1) [“Scaffold Law” imposing strict/absolute liability for certain elevation-related hazards], and 241(6) [duty to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations].
After a liability trial, the jury allocated 100% fault to the plaintiff and 0% to the defendants, resulting in dismissal of the complaint; the court denied plaintiff’s post-verdict application under CPLR 4404(a) [New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) provision allowing the court to set aside a verdict and direct judgment or a new trial].
The judgment dismissing the complaint based on the jury’s liability verdict was reversed; the complaint was reinstated and the case remitted for a new trial.
The verdict was against the weight of the evidence under the Lolik standard because the jury simultaneously found defendants failed to conduct required demolition inspections and failed to provide safe footing—failures that were substantial factors in causing the accident—yet assigned them 0% fault. This inconsistency could not be reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence; weight-of-the-evidence review required reversal, and preservation was not required.
Background
Plaintiff Estalin Cuji alleged he was injured while performing demolition at a building owned by 225 Fourth, LLC, with JRM Construction Management, LLC as the general contractor (GC). He asserted claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). A jury trial on liability produced inconsistent findings: the jury found defendants failed to conduct continuous inspections during demolition to detect weakened or deteriorated structures and failed to provide safe footing, and that these failures were substantial factors in causing the accident, yet still assigned 0% fault to defendants and 100% to plaintiff. After the court highlighted the inconsistency and sent the jury back, the jury again returned essentially the same allocation with an affirmative finding that the workplace was unsafe. Plaintiff’s counsel did not request further instruction before the verdict was recorded. After discharge of the jury, plaintiff moved orally under CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict and for judgment as a matter of law.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied plaintiff’s oral CPLR 4404(a) application and entered judgment dismissing the complaint based on the jury’s apportionment of fault (100% to plaintiff, 0% to defendants).
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed, on the facts, with costs; the complaint is reinstated and the matter remitted for a new trial. Applying the weight-of-the-evidence standard from Lolik v Big V Supermarkets, the court held the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence given the jury’s findings that defendants’ failures during demolition and unsafe footing were substantial factors in causing the accident. The court noted no preservation is required for weight-of-the-evidence review. Plaintiff’s remaining arguments were deemed unpreserved.
Legal Significance
Conflicting special verdict findings that defendants’ statutory/Industrial Code-related failures were substantial causal factors, yet assigning them no fault, render a defense verdict against the weight of the evidence and require reversal and a new trial. Appellate courts may conduct weight-of-the-evidence review without preservation, even where trial counsel did not seek additional curative instructions before the verdict was recorded.
When a jury finds defendants’ demolition-safety failures caused an accident but still allocates them 0% fault, the verdict is inherently inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence; the proper appellate remedy is reversal, reinstatement of the complaint, and a new trial.