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. 2024 NY Slip Op 06187 [233 AD3d 761]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Jaimes-Gutierrez v. 37 Raywood Dr., LLC

The plaintiff, Manuel Jaimes-Gutierrez, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which denied his motion for summary judgment on liability for violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. Jaimes-Gutierrez sustained injuries after falling from pull-down attic stairs while installing an alarm system at a construction site. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that the pull-down attic stairs served as a safety device under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that their failure violated Labor Law § 241 (6) by not meeting safety specifications under 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (1). Consequently, the Appellate Division granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on these Labor Law violations and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss those specific causes of action, affirming the remainder of the order with costs to the plaintiff.

Labor LawScaffold LawLadder AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilityAttic Stairs
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gutierrez v. Rhea

Carlos Gutierrez sought to succeed to his late mother's tenancy as a remaining family member (RFM) in an NYCHA apartment. His mother, Amparo, had requested to add Carlos to her lease in 2004, but NYCHA failed to process the application, despite Carlos living there and being listed on income affidavits. NYCHA later denied Carlos RFM status citing a 1996 burglary conviction, without notifying Amparo or Carlos, or providing an opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation, violating its own rules and due process. The court annulled NYCHA's determination, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence and noting the agency's procedural failures. The case was remanded to NYCHA for reconsideration of whether Carlos currently poses a threat to other tenants, acknowledging his sustained psychiatric stability and sobriety.

Remaining Family MemberSuccession RightsPublic HousingDue Process ViolationCriminal HistoryRehabilitation EvidenceAdministrative Agency RulesArbitrary and CapriciousAnnulment of DeterminationRemand for Reconsideration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1999

Stevenson v. Alfredo

The plaintiff appealed an order denying partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241-a against defendants Thomas Alfredo, Alfredo Landscape and Development Corporation, American Application Associates of Mt. Kisco, and Scott Terpening. Defendants Alfredo Landscape and Scott Terpening also cross-appealed portions of the order. The court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Alfredo Landscape and American Application Associates. It also granted summary judgment dismissing Labor Law claims under §§ 240(1) and 241-a against Thomas Alfredo and Scott Terpening, citing the homeowner exemption for Thomas Alfredo. The court affirmed the denial of conditional summary judgment for Alfredo Landscape regarding common-law indemnification due to an issue of fact on its negligence, and upheld the denial of Scott Terpening's cross-motion for summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding a triable issue of fact concerning his work.

Personal InjuriesLabor LawSummary JudgmentStrict LiabilityHomeowner ExemptionGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewCommon-Law IndemnificationNegligence
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00361
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2020

Gutierrez v. 610 Lexington Prop., LLC

Plaintiff Flavio Gutierrez was injured when he lost control of a heavy concrete form being passed to him from workers on a scaffold, causing him to fall backward. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the presence of a nail in the form or the exact weight of the material was irrelevant to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). It was also determined that it was not the plaintiff's responsibility to seek additional help after his partner was called away.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentScaffold LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityFall from HeightLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionNegligenceMaterial Hoisting
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08475 [156 AD3d 418]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Gutierrez v. 451 Lexington Realty LLC

Plaintiff Pedro Gutierrez suffered injuries when a heavy reel of electrical wire, weighing between 500 to 1,000 pounds, fell and struck his foot while being loaded onto a van at a construction site. He moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which the Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision, granting plaintiff's motion. The court found that plaintiff established liability due to the absence of an adequate safety device, dismissing defenses related to the availability of a forklift or claims of plaintiff being a recalcitrant worker, as no instruction to use alternative equipment was given. It further ruled that the loading activity, despite not being actual construction work, fell within the scope of the construction project for Labor Law § 240 (1) purposes.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentFalling Object InjurySummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate CauseThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gutierrez v. Henoch

Glennys Gutierrez, a former phlebotomist and medical assistant, brought an action against her co-worker Angelo Gelpi and employer Dr. Avraharn Henoch under Title VII, alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory termination. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where claims against Gelpi were dismissed. The court found Gutierrez's allegations of sexual harassment to be without merit, citing a lack of corroborative evidence and establishing that Gelpi was a co-worker, not a supervisor. Furthermore, the court determined that Gutierrez voluntarily resigned, contradicting her claim of retaliatory termination. Ultimately, the court resolved credibility issues in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint on the merits.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoDiscriminationBench TrialEmployee MisconductEmployer LiabilityCo-worker Harassment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gutierrez v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, Hispanic-American NYPD detectives Roland Gutierrez, Frankie Rosado, Rene Canela, and David Flores, filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, the NYPD, and supervisors Raymond Kelly, Stephen Kennedy, Kevin Moroney, and Raymond Rooney. They alleged employment discrimination based on race and national origin, retaliation, and hostile work environment. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court dismissed all claims against the NYPD as a non-suable entity and Section 1985 conspiracy claims. Title VII failure-to-promote claims for all plaintiffs and many other individual discrimination claims (e.g., denial of cash overtime, deflated evaluations, denial of transfers) were dismissed. However, Title VII claims for denial of investigative overtime for Rosado, Canela, and Flores, and Gutierrez's retaliation claim for disciplinary actions survived. Retaliation claims for Rosado, Canela, and Flores regarding reassignment of arrests also survived. Importantly, the hostile work environment claim survived for all plaintiffs. Section 1981 and Section 1983 claims against the City of New York and individual defendants in their official capacities were dismissed due to lack of municipal policy, but these claims against individual defendants in their individual capacities were denied dismissal.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983Municipal Liability
References
91
Case No. ADJ2369591
Regular
Aug 05, 2009

ARMANDO GUTIERREZ vs. ANTHONY BECHTOL DBA CUSTOM, ETC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund's (UEBTF) petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that Armando Gutierrez was not employed by Anthony Bechtol. Consequently, the Judge found no cause of action against Bechtol and issued a "take nothing" order against him. The matter was returned to the trial level to address a compromise and release agreement between Gutierrez and UEBTF, considering the finding of no employment.

Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleaseIllegally UninsuredLabor Code section 3715(e)Take Nothing OrderWCJ Report and RecommendationTrial LevelFurther Proceedings
References
0
Case No. ADJ1997686
Regular
Dec 24, 2010

JAVIER GUTIERREZ vs. COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Javier Gutierrez's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board held that petitions for reconsideration are deemed filed upon receipt by the Board, not by mailing date. Gutierrez's petition, mailed on November 24, 2010, was not received until December 3, 2010, which was after the jurisdictional deadline. Therefore, the Board lacked authority to consider the petition.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelyjurisdictionalserved by mailreceived dateofficial address recordproof of servicedismissedadministrative law judge
References
3
Case No. ADJ2441046 (SAL 0080759)
Regular
Jul 18, 2014

ELIZABETH GUTIERREZ vs. MERVYN'S ESTATE, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS SECURITY FUND

The WCAB denied Mervyn's Estate's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's decision allowing applicant Elizabeth Gutierrez to pursue her psychiatric claim. The WCJ found Gutierrez's testimony credible regarding her inability to attend two prior psychiatric evaluations due to lack of transportation reimbursement. While the WCAB denied removal as an extraordinary remedy, it reiterated that further missed appointments may result in the denial of her psychiatric claim.

Petition for Removalpsychiatric claimqualified medical evaluatormissed appointmentstransportation expensescredible testimonyextraordinary remedysubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsideration
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 119 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