Errol Joseph v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Tishman/Turner, JV, Tishman-Turner Joint Venture III, Tishman Construction Corporation, Tishman Construction Corporation of New York, Tish...

Errol Joseph v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Tishman/Turner, JV, Tishman-Turner Joint Venture III, Tishman Construction Corporation, Tishman Construction Corporation of New York, Tish...

Case Name

Errol Joseph v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Tishman/Turner, JV, Tishman-Turner Joint Venture III, Tishman Construction Corporation, Tishman Construction Corporation of New York, Tishman Construction Corporation of Manhattan, Turner Construction Company

Type of Injury

KNEE INJURY

Occupation

Carpenter

Location

New York, New York

Verdict

The parties negotiated a pretrial settlement. The defendants’ insurer agreed to pay $900,000. The negotiations were mediated by Allen Hurkin-Torres, of Jams.

Verdict Amount

$900,000

Case Details

On April 2, 2012, plaintiff Errol Joseph, 40, a union-affiliated carpenter, worked at a construction site that was located at the World Trade Center Transportation Hub, which abuts the intersection of Church and Fulton streets, in Manhattan. Joseph fell while he was walking on plywood that covered a treacherous section of ground. He claimed that he sustained injuries of a knee.

Joseph sued the premises’ owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; the construction project’s general contractors, Tishman Construction Corp. and Turner Construction Co.; and various related entities, Tishman Construction Corporation of Manhattan, Tishman Construction Corporation of New York, Tishman Turner Joint Venture III and Tishman/Turner Joint Venture. Joseph alleged that the defendants violated the New York State Labor Law.

Joseph claimed that he slipped while walking across the plywood. He claimed that the board covered a commonly traversed area in which debris, mud and water had accumulated. He also claimed that the hazard had been present for a period of at least 72 hours.

Joseph’s counsel contended that the defendants violated New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations title 23, part 1.7(e)(1), which specifies that a work site’s passageways must be free of any condition that could constitute a tripping hazard, and part 1.7(e)(2), which specifies that a work site’s floors must be free of debris, scattered tools and materials, and sharp objects. He contended that the violations established that the defendants failed to provide or ensure reasonable and adequate protection, as required by Labor Law § 241(6).

Defense counsel claimed that the board was situated in an area in which groundwater naturally accumulated, and he contended that the defendants could not be deemed liable for the water’s accumulation. Defense counsel also contended that Joseph failed to exercise due caution. He further contended that Labor Law § 241(6) was not applicable to the case.

Disclaimer: The information on this website and blog is for general informational purposes only and is not professional advice. We make no guarantees of accuracy or completeness. We disclaim all liability for errors, omissions, or reliance on this content. Always consult a qualified professional for specific guidance.

RECENT POSTS

How Vocational Evaluations Affect Divorce and Spousal Support
November 3, 2025
Explore how vocational evaluations influence divorce, alimony, and spousal support. See how OAS experts deliver fair, court-ready assessments nationwide.
Vocational Evaluation in Personal Injury Cases
October 20, 2025
Learn how vocational evaluation documents work capacity, future earning losses, and job limits to support personal injury claims. See OAS Inc’s approach.
The Role of a Vocational Expert in Determining Spousal Support
October 6, 2025
In this article, we’ll explain what a vocational expert does, why their role is important in vocational evaluation for divorce & matrimonial cases. Call us now
Life Care Planning Due To Medical Malpractice
September 22, 2025
Discover how life care planning works, why it matters in medical malpractice cases, and how it benefits both patients and the legal system. Contact OAS Today!
Demonstrative Evidence in Vocational Assessments
September 1, 2025
In this article, we’ll explore what demonstrative evidence is, why it matters in vocational assessments, and how it can make complex information easier.

CONTACT US