Thomas Comer (Partner, New York), Thomas O’Connor (Associate, White Plains), and Judy Selmeci (Partner, New York), obtained a complete defense verdict on behalf of the client in Supreme Court, Nassau County before the Hon. Catherine Rizzo. The jury unanimously found that the client bore no liability in connection with plaintiff’s claimed Labor Law accident. Plaintiff, a 24-year-old demolition laborer at the time of the alleged incident, claimed that he sustained injuries as a result of a fall from a scaffold while performing interior demolition work. He alleged significant orthopedic injuries, including to his knee, spine, and shoulder, and underwent multiple surgical procedures, including a two-level lumbar laminectomy, a single-level cervical fusion, and a left shoulder arthroscopy. He further claimed total disability, with over $1,000,000 in alleged future lost wages. Plaintiff’s theory as to the client was not based on any actual involvement in the work, but on an effort to characterize the client as a “contractor” or statutory agent based largely on a permit issued in its name. The defense focused on a clear and targeted strategy: establishing that the client had no authority to direct, supervise, or control the injury-producing work. The evidence showed that the client did not perform work at the site, did not retain plaintiff or any subcontractors, did not receive payment, and had no role in how the work was carried out. Instead, the work was performed independently by others, without the client’s knowledge or involvement. During the charge conference, the team secured modified jury instructions to both PJI 2:216 and 2:217. Over opposition, the Court agreed to instruct the jury that it must first determine whether the client had the authority to supervise, direct, or control the work before considering any potential Labor Law liability. That framework was reinforced in the verdict sheet, which required the jury to address this threshold issue at the outset. At trial, the defense also highlighted significant credibility issues in plaintiff’s account, including his admission that he told medical providers he was injured in a bicycle accident. Through cross-examination and the testimony of a neutral medical witness, the defense established that plaintiff offered multiple, inconsistent explanations for this discrepancy. Following nearly four hours of deliberations, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict, with the jury assigning 0% liability to the client.