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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schelble v. ADF Construction Corp.

Defendants and third-party plaintiffs, ADF Construction Corp. and Master Builders, Inc., sought summary judgment for contractual and common-law indemnification against third-party defendant Steelcor Builders. The Supreme Court erred in denying contractual indemnification, as the subcontract contained a broad indemnity clause, and General Obligations Law §5-322.1 did not preclude enforcement due to absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the denial of common-law indemnification was proper due to existing factual issues concerning ADF's control over worker safety. The appellate court modified the orders by granting summary judgment for contractual indemnification and otherwise affirmed the orders.

contractual indemnificationcommon-law indemnificationsummary judgmentsubcontract agreementLabor Law liabilityGeneral Obligations Lawabsolute liabilityworker safetyappellate revieworder modification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2009

Pieri v. B&B Welch Associates

Plaintiffs, including Duane Fieri, Sr., commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained while servicing a lift station at an apartment complex owned by the unnamed defendant. Fieri fell into a sewage tank during troubleshooting a malfunction. The Supreme Court initially granted parts of the defendant's summary judgment motion, but a jury found the defendant liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the judgment was unanimously affirmed. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the work constituted routine maintenance or that Fieri's failure to use safety devices was the sole proximate cause of the accident, noting that troubleshooting an uncommon malfunction is a protected activity and that evidence of instruction on safety device usage was lacking.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace SafetyNegligenceAppellate DecisionSummary Judgment MotionJury VerdictProximate CauseDuty to Provide Safety DevicesRoutine Maintenance Distinction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Boyce Iron Works, Inc.

Boyce Iron Works sued Southwestern Bell Telephone and others for property damages resulting from a fire that occurred during a burglary. The fire started after a silent burglar alarm system, connected via a telephone line provided by Southwestern Bell, malfunctioned. Boyce alleged negligence and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. A jury initially found in favor of Boyce, awarding significant damages. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that Boyce failed to obtain a finding that a defect in the telephone equipment caused the alarm malfunction, and that there was no evidence that Southwestern Bell's alleged misrepresentations or course of conduct were a 'producing cause' of Boyce’s damages. The court rendered judgment that Boyce take nothing from Southwestern Bell.

Property DamageBurglar Alarm SystemNegligenceDeceptive Trade Practices ActProducing CauseAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSpecial IssuesJury FindingsReversed Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Benderson

The provided text discusses the absolute liability of defendants under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices to protect workers from injuries related to elevation differentials and falling objects. It references several prior cases, including Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, and Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., to establish the scope and intent of the statute. The document highlights that the law is designed to prevent harm directly resulting from the force of gravity and applies even if the harm is caused by a malfunctioning protective device. In the specific scenario mentioned, a malfunctioning bucket, considered a hoist, led to the plaintiff's injury, making the defendants absolutely liable under the statute for failing to provide proper protection.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Workplace SafetyFalling ObjectsHoist MalfunctionElevation DifferentialsNondelegable DutyStatutory LiabilityGravity-Related HarmScaffold SafetyWorker Protection
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

Lunde v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc.

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, an employee of Nichols Yacht Yard Inc., suffered a hand injury while attempting to fix a malfunctioning boat lift. The defendant, also located on the premises, had employees instruct the plaintiff, who was not part of the trained 'yard crew,' to launch a boat using a 'big lift' when no trained personnel were available. The lift malfunctioned due to a displaced cable, and as the plaintiff attempted to correct it per defendant's instructions, his hand was pulled into a pulley. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, found the defendant 95% at fault, based on a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the defendant, as an owner or general contractor, owed a duty to provide a safe workplace under Labor Law §200, and that the jury's finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySafe Workplace DutyLabor Law §200Jury VerdictAppellate ReviewComparative NegligenceBoat Lift AccidentEmployer LiabilityExpert Witness Testimony
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wittkopp v. ADF Construction Corp.

John F. Wittkopp was injured after falling from a roof during construction work, claiming no safety devices were provided. The Supreme Court initially denied partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, citing a factual dispute about his location. However, the appellate court reversed this, stating plaintiff's activity was incidental to construction and that he lacked safety equipment. The court rejected arguments about an unwitnessed accident and inconsistent testimony due to plaintiff's concussion. The defendant's lack of opportunity to depose the supervisor was also dismissed, as the supervisor's affidavit was already submitted. Consequently, the appellate court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding no material issues of fact regarding liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor Law § 240 (1)Partial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafety device absenceConcussion sequelaePlaintiff credibilityThird-party defendant liabilityMotion practice
References
7
Case No. LAO 0803996, LAO 0803995
Regular
Nov 20, 2007

ESTHER SALDANA vs. LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sustained an electrical shock injury while using a malfunctioning sheeter machine at work. Despite prior reports of electrical issues and shocks from the machine to management, the employer failed to properly repair or remove it from use. The Appeals Board reversed the WCJ's decision, finding the employer's actions constituted serious and willful misconduct, entitling the applicant to increased compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 4553Industrial InjuryElectrical ShockSheeter MachineEmployer NegligenceManagerial KnowledgeSupervisor NeglectQuasi-Criminal Conduct
References
3
Case No. ADJ10153514 ADJ10605281
Regular
Sep 30, 2019

ROBERTO CARDENAS vs. SANTA ISABEL ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a VALLARTA, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant alleging a specific injury to his right wrist, hand, and shoulder from a machine malfunction. The original Findings and Orders denied the claim, finding the applicant not credible, particularly due to discrepancies with a First Aid and Injury Notice. The Appeals Board rescinded this decision, finding that the WCJ failed to address the credible testimony of a eyewitness. The matter was returned for further proceedings to clarify evidence and credibility issues.

ADJ10153514ADJ10605281ROBERTO CARDENASSANTA ISABEL ENTERPRISESVALLARTASAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANYHAZELRIGG CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICESWORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONFindings and Orders
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. New York State Comptroller

Petitioner, an off-duty detective on sick leave, applied for accidental disability retirement benefits after being shot in the head. The Comptroller denied the application, finding that the incident, which involved the petitioner's intoxication (0.16% BAC) and a confrontation with Charles Davis over a malfunctioning headlight, did not occur while he was engaged in police duties but rather stemmed from a personal agenda. The court confirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the injury was not sustained while in service, and dismissed the petition.

Accidental Disability RetirementPolice DetectiveOff-Duty InjuryIntoxication at IncidentScope of EmploymentCPLR Article 78Comptroller Decision ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardPolice PowersLynbrook Police
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 78 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