CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02959
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Weekes v. Tishman Tech. Corp.

Samuel Weekes, an employee, was injured while dismantling a scaffold at a construction site managed by Tishman Technologies Corporation. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). The Supreme Court initially denied Weekes's summary judgment motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss, also denying Weekes's motion for leave to renew. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that Tishman could be considered a statutory agent of the owner due to its control over safety. The court also found that Weekes's activity was covered under Labor Law § 240(1) and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the elevation-related hazard and proximate cause, thereby denying the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The denial of Weekes's motion for leave to renew was affirmed, and part of the appeal from the November 4, 2020 order was dismissed as academic.

Construction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationScaffold SafetyElevation HazardSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityTriable Issues of Fact
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Martin R. Kennedy was injured while working on a barge chartered by his employer, American Bridge Company, from Week’s Marine, Inc. Kennedy fell from a wooden plank serving as the barge's gangway, which was supplied by American Bridge. He brought suit pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 905(b), but Magistrate Judge David F. Jordan granted summary judgment for Week’s Marine, concluding they had no duty to provide a safe gangway under a bare boat charter. Kennedy appealed this judgment, arguing Week's Marine had knowledge of workers on the barge. The District Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Week's Marine, having relinquished control of the vessel in a bare boat charter, was not responsible for conditions arising after the charter or for providing a gangway, as the charterer, American Bridge, became the owner pro hac vice and bore that duty.

Bare Boat CharterMaritime LawSummary JudgmentLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel Owner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityGangway SafetyDuty of CareOwner Pro Hac ViceAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palanquet v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Plaintiffs Guy and Mary Palanquet sued Weeks Marine, Inc. for injuries sustained by Guy Palanquet while working on the Robert Moses Causeway bridge reconstruction project, alleging a violation of New York Labor Law § 240(1). Weeks, the general contractor, impleaded C.B. Contracting Corp. (Palanquet's employer) and United States Fire Insurance Company (C.B.'s insurer), seeking defense and indemnification from U.S. Fire. U.S. Fire cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to defend Weeks. The court granted Palanquet's motion for summary judgment against Weeks, finding Weeks liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The court also granted U.S. Fire's cross-motion for summary judgment, determining that an 'Additional Exclusion' in the policy relieved U.S. Fire of its duty to defend or indemnify Weeks because Weeks' own negligence caused the injury. Weeks' motion for summary judgment against U.S. Fire was denied.

Summary judgmentNew York Labor Law § 240(1)Construction accidentLadder fallGeneral contractor liabilityInsurance coverageAdditional insuredWatercraft exclusionDisclaimer of coverageEstoppel
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nielsen v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

Francis Nielsen, a dock-builder, and his wife, Jacqueline Nielsen, sued Weeks Marine Inc. for personal injuries and loss of consortium under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The case, initially filed in state court, was removed to federal court. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, citing a procedural defect in removal, but maintained subject matter jurisdiction under the Jones Act. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Barge 525 was not a 'vessel in navigation' and therefore Nielsen was not a 'seaman' under the Jones Act, dismissing all claims.

Jones ActSeaman StatusVessel in NavigationSummary JudgmentMaritime LawPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumRemoval JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureBarge
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonilla v. State

Claimant, injured while sandblasting a bridge beam, appealed an order from the Court of Claims regarding his Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) claims. The Court of Claims had denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss that claim, concluding no elevation-related risk. The appellate court modified this order, ruling that the claimant's work did expose him to an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for failing to provide proper safety devices. However, the appellate court found that neither party had made a prima facie showing for summary judgment or dismissal on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. This was due to unresolved factual issues concerning whether the claimant could have affixed his lanyard to a standing object as a proper safety measure, or if the lanyard itself failed to provide proper protection, thereby leaving the question of proximate cause open.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentProximate CauseWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewBridge ConstructionSafety EquipmentAbsolute Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2000

Claim of Lesperance v. Gulf Oil Co.

The claimant, a former truck driver for Gulf Oil Company, developed bilateral torn rotator cuffs, diagnosed in September 1991, while working part-time for Susse Chalet. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the condition an occupational disease, fixing the disablement date as September 3, 1991, and attributed it to employment with both Gulf and Susse Chalet, allowing Susse Chalet to pursue apportionment. The current appeal concerns the Board's decision from April 3, 2000, which established the claimant's average weekly wage based solely on employment with Susse Chalet. The claimant argued that due to the disease's degenerative nature and long employment with Gulf, wages from both employers should be considered for the average weekly wage. However, the Board's decision to base the average weekly wage solely on Susse Chalet employment was affirmed, citing Workers' Compensation Law provisions that define wage and average weekly wage based on employment at the time of injury and absence of provisions for successive employers.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationOccupational Disease ApportionmentDate of DisablementSuccessive Employment WagesRotator Cuff InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law InterpretationDegenerative DiseaseStatutory DefinitionsConcurrent Employment DistinctionBoard Decision Appeal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelleher v. Power Authority

Plaintiff Terrence P. Kelleher, a drill blaster, was injured while working on a ladder at a hydroelectric facility when the ladder shifted and his gloved hand was pulled into a drill. He sued the defendant, an easement holder and facility owner, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court initially granted Kelleher partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that Kelleher's injury, which did not involve a fall from an elevated height or being struck by a falling object, was not an 'elevation-related risk' intended to be covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was dismissed.

Labor Law § 240(1)elevation-related hazardladder accidentsummary judgmentappellate reviewstatutory interpretationconstruction site injuryabsolute liabilityproximate causeworkplace safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2002

Fuga v. St. Moritz Holding, LLC

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order granting a laborer partial summary judgment against the owner and general contractor for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The laborer sought recovery for personal injuries sustained when a scaffold collapsed. The defendants contested summary judgment, citing the plaintiff's non-compliance with a discovery order to produce coworker addresses. However, the court ruled that the defendants had sufficient time to locate the coworkers and that the requested disclosure was futile. This futility was based on the defendants' own admissions regarding a malfunctioning scaffold part and the absence of a safety harness, rendering coworker testimony irrelevant to liability under section 240 (1). The court also emphasized that comparative negligence is not a valid defense for a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation.

Scaffold CollapsePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawStatutory LiabilityDiscovery DisputeCoworker TestimonyFutility of DisclosureComparative NegligenceConstruction Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1997

Till v. Chautauqua Opportunities, Inc.

The claimant, a private preschool teacher, suffered a compensable injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board calculated her average weekly wage based on Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1), asserting she worked “substantially the whole of the year” despite her 41-week annual employment. The employer contended this was irrational, arguing that predictable seasonal layoffs should be factored into the annual earnings calculation, preventing her from receiving benefits equivalent to a full-time, full-year employee. The court agreed, holding that the formula in Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (1) was inapplicable when seasonal layoffs are a known incident of employment. Therefore, the average weekly wage should be calculated under subdivisions (3) and (4) of Workers’ Compensation Law § 14. The Board's decision was reversed, and the matter remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's ruling.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageSeasonal EmploymentRemittiturStatutory InterpretationSection 14Appellate DivisionWage CalculationEmployment DurationBoard Decision Reversal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 9,074 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational