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

Rodriguez v. JMB Architecture, LLC

The case involves Noe Rodriguez, an injured construction worker, who sued JMB Architecture, LLC, the construction manager, for negligence and Labor Law violations. Rodriguez sustained an eye injury while working on a private residence. Initially, the property owners were defendants, but they were later removed, and JMB became the sole defendant. The Supreme Court granted JMB's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that JMB's role was merely general supervision and lacked the requisite control over the work to be held liable as an agent or general contractor under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6).

construction injuryLabor Lawconstruction managerliabilitysummary judgmentappellate decisionworkplace safetyagencysupervisiongeneral contractor
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04678 [173 AD3d 831]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Daeira v. Genting N.Y., LLC

Ricky Daeira and his wife sued Genting New York, LLC, New York Raceway Association, Inc., and D'Amato Builders & Advisors, LLC, after Ricky Daeira was injured by falling through glass flooring at a construction site, alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. D'Amato Builders & Advisors, LLC subsequently initiated a third-party action against A.F.I. Glass & Architectural Metal, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed Labor Law claims against the defendants. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying summary judgment to New York Raceway Association, Inc., on the common-law negligence and contribution claims, while affirming the remainder of the order. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff was an 'employee' under the Labor Law provisions. It also found that D'Amato Builders & Advisors, LLC, failed to establish its lack of negligence, and New York Raceway Association, Inc., presented contradictory evidence regarding its control over the worksite, precluding summary judgment on the negligence claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. 03-08-00288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2008

Texas Society of Professional Engineers v. Texas Board of Architectural Examiners and Cathy Hendricks, Executive Director

The Texas Society of Professional Engineers appealed the trial court's partial grant of a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners (TBAE) and its Executive Director. The Society sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the TBAE from initiating enforcement proceedings against licensed engineers for alleged violations of the Architecture Practice Act, asserting engineers are exempt and TBAE lacks jurisdiction. The trial court granted the plea in part, ruling it lacked jurisdiction over most claims except those challenging TBAE rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed this order, concluding the Society lacked associational standing to pursue the broad relief requested under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. This was because such claims required a fact-intensive, case-by-case analysis of individual engineers' conduct, not pure issues of law.

JurisdictionAssociational StandingDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefPlea to the JurisdictionProfessional LicensingArchitectureEngineeringAdministrative LawRegulatory Authority
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00941 [202 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Locke v. URS Architecture & Eng'g-N.Y., P.C.

Plaintiff Michael Locke sustained injuries after slipping on soapy water in a designated restroom at a construction site managed by URS. Locke had repeatedly notified URS of an overflowing sink causing water to pool, but URS attributed responsibility to prime general contractor Tri-Rail. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on common-law negligence and Labor Law claims against URS, while denying URS's motion to dismiss and for contractual indemnification against Tri-Rail, and denying Crescent's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Crescent and granting URS conditional contractual indemnification against Tri-Rail, pending liability apportionment. The court found URS liable under Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 due to its control over the injury-producing activity and notice of the dangerous condition.

Workers' CompensationConstruction Site AccidentSlip and FallPremises LiabilityLabor Law §200Labor Law §241(6)Industrial Code ViolationSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law Negligence
References
9
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04967 [241 AD3d 1097]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2025

Santiago v. Genting N.Y. LLC

This case concerns an appeal arising from a construction accident where plaintiff Edwin Santiago was injured while moving glass panels on a ramp that allegedly wobbled. Santiago initiated claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), alongside a common-law negligence claim against Genting New York LLC and United Architectural Metals, Inc. The court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining the injury stemmed from lateral movement rather than an elevation-related hazard. However, outstanding factual questions prevented summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim regarding the ramp's stability and the common-law negligence claim against UAM regarding defective crating. The decision also modified a ruling on a third-party contractual indemnification claim between the Genting defendants and UAM, highlighting unresolved issues of liability.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkConstruction AccidentElevation-Related HazardIndustrial Code ViolationSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party ClaimAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04941 [208 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2022

Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc.

This personal injury action arises from a construction site accident where plaintiff, an A-Val Architectural Metal III, LLC employee, slipped on pebbles. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to several defendants (Park, CBRE, and Structure Tone Inc.) on claims related to Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200, and common-law negligence. The court determined that the Industrial Code regulations cited were inapplicable and that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Additionally, the court ruled on various contractual indemnification claims, finding certain indemnification clauses enforceable while others were not due to ambiguity or lack of negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon Law NegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 09217
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Matter of Szokalski v. A-Val Architectural Metal Corp.

Claimant Roman Szokalski, a construction worker for A-Val Architectural Metal Corporation, filed a workers' compensation claim for a repetitive stress injury to his back and bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and identified Arch Insurance Company as the responsible carrier. Arch's subsequent application to the Workers' Compensation Board for review or a rehearing was denied due to its untimeliness and failure to provide an excuse for not appearing at prior hearings. Arch appealed this denial. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in refusing to consider the untimely review request or grant a rehearing.

Workers' CompensationRepetitive Stress InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeUntimely ApplicationRehearing DenialWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewAppellate DivisionInsurance Carrier LiabilityFailure to AppearJudicial Discretion
References
6
Case No. 08-70200
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. v. ACM-Texas, LLC (In re ACM-Texas, Inc.)

This case concerns a protracted dispute between Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. (TAA) and Applied Chemical Magnesias Corporation (ACM) and ACM-Texas, LLC, over mineral mining rights in Culberson County, Texas. TAA filed various claims including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass, while ACM counter-claimed for similar issues. The Court deemed the initial 1999 Letter Agreement unenforceable due to a lack of material terms and non-compliance with the statute of frauds. Ultimately, TAA was awarded $7,125,073.08 for ACM's unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass related to unlawfully mined materials. ACM, in turn, received $75,000 in reliance damages under promissory estoppel for the construction of a mill, with all other claims and counterclaims denied.

Mining DisputeMineral RightsContract DisputeUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelConversionTrespassBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingLetter Agreement EnforceabilityFraud Claims
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 4,734 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