Chiappa v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

── Chiappa v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. ── Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General <div>Chiappa v Port Auth. of N.Y. &amp; N.J. - 2026 NY Slip Op 03227 <div> skip to main content </div> <div> <p>It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.</p> </div> <div> <header> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/nys-logo-white.svg" alt=""> </div> <div> <span title="Law Reporting Bureau Home Page">Law Reporting <br>Bureau <span></span></span> <span>Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter</span> <nav> Court Decisions Resources About </nav> </div> <div> <img src="/reporter/images/lrb-seal.png" alt=""> </div> </header> </div> <nav> <ol> <li>Home</li> <li>All Court Decisions</li> <li>Decisions</li> </ol> </nav> <div> <div> <h1>Chiappa v Port Auth. of N.Y. &amp; N.J.</h1> <p>2026 NY Slip Op 03227</p> <p>May 21, 2026</p> <p>Appellate Division, First Department</p> <p>Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.</p> <p>This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.</p> </div> <div> <p>Michael C. Chiappa et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,</p> <p>v</p> <p>The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al., Defendants-Respondents.</p> </div> <p>Decided and Entered: May 21, 2026</p> <p>Index No. 805328/22|Appeal No. 6686|Case No. 2025-05820|</p> <p>Before: Kennedy, J.P., Scarpulla, Mendez, Rodriguez, Rosado, JJ. </p> <div> <p>Horn Appellate Group, P.C., Brooklyn (Christen Giannaros of counsel), for appellants.</p> <p>Gerber Ciano Kelly Brady LLP, Garden City (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for respondents.</p> </div> <span>[*1]</span> <p>Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Myrna Socorro, J.), entered September 24, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment insofar as it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims and the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. and reinstating the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as against all defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.</p> <p>Plaintiff Michael C. Chiappa alleges that he was injured while working on a construction project at LaGuardia Airport; the airport was owned by defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which in turn leased it to Delta. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that the superintendent for Delta, which was constructing a new terminal building and concourse, instructed him to move 10 crates of construction material, each weighing around 400 pounds, across an expansion joint. To accomplish this task, plaintiff and a coworker had to wheel pallet jacks over a ramp that Delta had installed. As the crates were being moved, one of them got stuck on the ramp, and plaintiff was injured when he and his coworker tried to lift the stuck crate.</p> <p>Supreme Court should not have dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim because defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on that claim. On the contrary, the record at a minimum contains an issue of fact as to whether defendants violated Industrial Code § 23-1.22(b)(1) by providing a ramp that was not secured. Plaintiff's coworker testified at his deposition that the plywood ramps "flap[ped] around" when the workers crossed over them, and plaintiff's supervisor testified that the ramps "c[a]me loose" and "start[ed] peeling up" because they were warped. That the ramp failed to withstand the weight of the pallet jack and crate demonstrates that it was not adequately constructed (<i>see</i> <i>Solarte v Brearley Sch.</i>, 238 AD3d 541, 542 [1st Dept 2025]).</p> <p>The Lab