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. 2018 NY Slip Op 01829 [159 AD3d 1457]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Rickicki v. Borden Chem.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard an appeal concerning two actions, Rickicki v Borden Chemical and Crowley v C-E Minerals, Inc., both involving claims for damages due to silicosis from silica dust exposure at Dexter Corporation. The core legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 'sophisticated intermediary doctrine,' which asserts that product manufacturers have no duty to warn ultimate users if an informed intermediary, like an employer, is aware of the product's dangers. Reversing the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the Appellate Division declined to recognize this doctrine under the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the court reinstated negligence and products liability causes of action based on failure to warn, along with loss of consortium claims, against the defendant silica manufacturers. The decision emphasized that whether adequate warnings were provided to the injured workers and if failure to warn was a proximate cause remained triable issues of fact.

Sophisticated Intermediary DoctrineFailure to WarnProducts LiabilityNegligenceSilica Dust ExposureSilicosisProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
36
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
Jan 15, 1988

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. LTV Corp.

David H. Miller and William W. Shaffer ("Miller and Shaffer") moved to intervene individually and as representatives of participants in the Jones & Laughlin Retirement Plan in an action filed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) against LTV Corporation and LTV Steel Company ("LTV"). LTV did not object to individual intervention but opposed class action intervention, arguing it would delay the PBGC action. The court granted the motion, allowing Miller and Shaffer to intervene both individually and as class representatives. The decision emphasized that Miller and Shaffer met the minimal burden of showing that PBGC's representation might be inadequate, as their interests, seeking full plan benefits, could diverge from PBGC's role as plan administrator. This opinion allows the class action to proceed under Rule 23(e), preventing dismissal or compromise without court approval.

InterventionERISAPension PlansBankruptcyClass ActionRule 24Rule 23(e)Adequate RepresentationPlan TerminationRestoration
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rayex Corp. v. Sanchez

This case involves an action by plaintiffs Lenscraft Optical Corporation and Rayex Corporation to restrain defendant unions, Locals 1614 and 810, from striking and picketing. The plaintiffs also sought a temporary injunction and to prevent the unions from forcing recognition as a collective bargaining agent. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that another action between the same parties for the same cause was already pending. The court agreed with the defendants, finding the actions substantially identical and the new allegations suitable for a supplemental pleading in the existing case. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction.

Labor DisputePicketingStrikeTemporary InjunctionCollective BargainingMotion to DismissPrior Action PendingCivil ProcedureSupplemental PleadingJurisdiction
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02539 [204 AD3d 903]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Leighton v. Chaber, LLC

Michael Leighton (plaintiff) was allegedly injured on March 20, 2013, when he was struck in the eye by debris from a grinder tool while performing renovation work at a property owned by Chaber, LLC, and leased by Starbucks Corporation. He commenced actions against Chaber, LLC, and Starbucks Corporation, asserting violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) predicated upon 12 NYCRR 23-1.33. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court vacated its prior decision and granted the defendants' motions. The plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that 12 NYCRR 23-1.33 does not apply to workers on a construction site, which was the plaintiff's status.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law12 NYCRR 23-1.33Personal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyDebris AccidentReargumentAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationScope of Regulation
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05955 [174 AD3d 850]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Davies v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Gerald Davies, was injured while pushing a cart of concrete over a plywood sheet that covered a hole at a construction site. He initiated an action against the premises operator, Simon Property Group, Inc., the general contractor, E.W. Howell Co., LLC, and the sidewalk removal company, Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). E.W. Howell Co., LLC also filed a third-party action against Allstate Interior Demolition Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's initial order, which partially granted and denied various summary judgment motions, was subject to appeals and cross-appeals. The Appellate Division ultimately reversed the order in part, granting Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and denying Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion concerning Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationElevation DifferentialScaffold LawIndustrial CodeSafe Work Environment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Hughes, Harrison & Brown Roofing, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance

Plaintiffs, a corporation and individuals, initiated an action seeking a declaration that their insurance company, the defendant, was obligated to defend and indemnify them in a negligence lawsuit filed by an employee, Patrick Paul Black. The underlying negligence action alleged that the corporation failed to secure workers' compensation insurance. The defendant insurer denied its obligation, citing policy exclusions related to workers' compensation liabilities and disputing coverage for the individual plaintiffs. Initially, the Supreme Court, Orange County, granted the plaintiffs' request for accelerated judgment, compelling the insurer to provide defense. However, this judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, with the appellate court noting the absence of the actual insurance policy and the impropriety of adjudicating coverage without it, especially concerning the workers' compensation exclusion.

Insurance coverage disputeDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyWorkers' compensation exclusionAccelerated judgmentNegligence actionEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewPolicy interpretationSummary judgment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2011

Annicaro v. Corporate Suites, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Millenium Contracting Services Corp., was injured while cleaning debris from a staircase at a commercial building owned by 757 3rd Avenue Associates, LLC, managed by RFR Realty, LLC, and leased by Corporate Suites 757, LLC. He allegedly stepped on a threaded metal rod, lost his balance, and fell, sustaining personal injuries. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the hazard was inherent to the plaintiff's work for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a violation of a specific Industrial Code provision or causation for Labor Law § 241 (6).

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Safe Place to WorkDebris HazardStaircase Fall
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1988

Calhoun v. Big Apple Wrecking Corp.

The defendant, Big Apple Wrecking Corporation, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The underlying injury occurred at a construction site, and the Workers' Compensation Board had previously determined the injury was work-related, providing benefits to the plaintiff's decedent. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against Big Apple Wrecking Corporation. The court emphasized that workers' compensation benefits serve as the exclusive remedy for employees injured by co-workers in the same employ, citing Workers’ Compensation Law. Furthermore, the court reiterated that determinations made by the Workers' Compensation Board on questions of fact, including employer-employee relationships, are final and binding under principles of res judicata.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRes JudicataAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstruction Site InjuryNew York LawExclusive RemedyAdministrative Determinations
References
6
Case No. CA 12-00504
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

MILLER, DEBRA J. v. SAVARINO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Plaintiff Debra J. Miller commenced a personal injury and wrongful death action after her decedent suffered a fatal heart attack at a building allegedly owned by defendant 26 Mississippi Street LLC, undergoing renovation. Defendant Savarino Construction Corporation was the construction manager. The decedent suffered a heart attack after ascending five flights of stairs to attach a temporary heat cannon. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that 26 Mississippi did not own the building at the relevant times and Savarino Construction had no control over the work or premises. The court also dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action due to plaintiff's failure to allege a violation of a qualifying Industrial Code provision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Premises LiabilityOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 9,796 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