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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. 1:10-CV-00543; 1:10-CV-00544; 1:10-CV-00546; 1:10-CV-00549; 1:10-CV-00569
Regular Panel Decision

Donohue v. Paterson

The court addresses five consolidated motions for preliminary injunctions filed by various public employee organizations and individuals against New York State officials, including Governor David A. Paterson. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the implementation of emergency appropriation 'extender bills' which imposed unpaid furloughs, wage freezes, and benefits freezes, arguing these measures violated the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution by impairing existing collective bargaining agreements. The court granted the preliminary injunctions, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm due to the significant financial impact and lack of federal remedy, and a likelihood of success on the merits. The court concluded that the state's actions constituted a substantial impairment of contracts without demonstrating reasonable and necessary means to address the fiscal crisis, especially given the state's self-interest as a party to the contracts and the lack of proper legislative deliberation.

preliminary injunctioncontract clausecollective bargaining agreementswage freezefurloughsfiscal crisisstate employees rightsgovernment contractslegislative powerexecutive action
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01738 [192 AD3d 953]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Andres v. North 10 Project, LLC

The plaintiff, Mieczyslaw Andres, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when an electrical panel box he was removing fell and struck him. He appealed from an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants North 10 Project, LLC, and HSD Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the electrical panel box was an object requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionFalling Object DoctrineAppellate DivisionLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. ADJ8572033
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

NELLY MOLINA vs. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By MACY'S

This case involves a lien claim by Industrial Healthcare for medical services provided to applicant Nelly Molina from November 6, 2012, to September 10, 2013. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of an order dismissing the lien, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the lien was untimely. The WCAB ruled that because the last date of service (September 10, 2013) was after July 1, 2013, the 18-month statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a) applied, making the lien filed on September 2, 2015, tardy. A dissenting opinion argued that continuous services provided both before and after July 1, 2013, should be subject to the three-year statute of limitations, allowing for a single lien filing.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)statute of limitationslien claimreconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lienworkers' compensation administrative law judgeIndustrial HealthcareInnovative Medical ManagementMacy's Corporate Servicescontinuous treatment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zong Mou Zou v. Hai Ming Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, an owner and employee of Jian Li Construction, Inc., sustained personal injuries after falling 10 to 13 feet due to the collapse of sheet metal decking at a construction site. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Hai Ming Construction Corp., and site owners 62 Maspeth Avenue, LLC, and Danbro, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied. On appeal, the order was reversed on the law. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and that it was a proximate cause of his accident. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff's actions as the sole proximate cause or his status as a recalcitrant worker. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability was granted.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Court DecisionLiability DeterminationProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sopha v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Plaintiff, an asbestos abatement worker, suffered injuries after falling approximately 4 to 5 feet from scaffolding when his work suit snagged on a windowsill while attempting to exit a second-story window. The Supreme Court correctly determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) was applicable but erred in granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, as factual questions remained regarding the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (f), 23-1.21 (b)(4), and 23-5.3 (f). However, other regulations, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b)(1), 23-2.7, and 23-5.1 (f), were found inapplicable. The final order was modified to deny the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Asbestos AbatementScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseWorker SafetyConstruction AccidentNew York RegulationsAppellate Division
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,031 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