Kelley Kronenberg Partner Tara Corsello and Law Clerk Michael Reid (Bar admission pending) secured a favorable ruling in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, on behalf of New York Stucco & General Construction, LLC in a New York Labor Law matter. Tara’s oral argument proved persuasive, with the Court siding with the defense on every issue raised in the motion. 

The plaintiff, a non-citizen from Ecuador employed by the firm’s client, alleged he was struck by a falling gutter pipe while performing construction work on a scaffold on September 21, 2023, and asserted claims for negligence and violations of the New York Labor Law. The plaintiff had produced a social security card both to his employer and to the Workers’ Compensation Board seeking lost wages following his workplace accident. During his deposition, the plaintiff alleged that NY Stucco, his employer, had instructed him to purchase a fraudulent social security card to secure employment. NY Stucco’s representative denied that allegation. 

During the deposition of a NY Stucco employee, regarding the circumstances leading up to and including the happening of the alleged accident. The plaintiff’s counsel questioned the witness about their immigration status and the documents they had provided to NY Stucco upon hiring. Tara directed the witness not to answer those questions on the grounds that they were extremely prejudicial and designed to intimidate the witness who had not placed their citizenship in question. The plaintiff’s counsel marked the questions for a ruling and filed a motion to compel a further deposition of the witness seeking testimony regarding the fact witness, and other employee’s citizenship and documentation. Counsel further sought sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees and costs, despite a pre-motion conference with the presiding Judge that the plaintiff’s request was likely beyond the scope of admissible evidence.  

With critical support from Michael, Tara successfully argued that the plaintiff had not established how the non-party witness’s immigration status was material or necessary to the prosecution of his lost wages claim. They further argued that directing the witness not to answer was proper under 22 NYCRR §221.2, as the questions were not material and necessary and would, if answered, cause significant prejudice to the witness. The Court agreed on all points, denying the motion to compel in its entirety and denying the request for sanctions as moot. 

Stay up to date on the latest developments in general liability and third-party insurance. Click here to read the latest issue of our newsletter, “In the Know: General Liability Edition.”   

Learn more about Kelley Kronenberg’s General Liability and Third-Party Insurance Defense Division. Click here.