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

Alvarez v. Michael Anthony George Construction Corp.

This Memorandum & Order addresses a motion for partial summary judgment filed by multiple plaintiffs against landscaping and construction businesses and their owner, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law regarding unpaid overtime and retaliation. The Court denied summary judgment on the FLSA claim due to insufficient evidence of interstate commerce. However, partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs on their state law overtime claims, as evidence showed they worked over forty hours without proper compensation. The employee status of three plaintiffs (Juan Castillo, Juan Leonel Lopez Juarez, and Jorge Mario Ramos Munoz) remained a disputed factual issue, exempting their claims from this partial judgment.

FLSANew York Labor LawOvertime CompensationWage and Hour DisputeSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityEmployee MisclassificationRetaliation ClaimInterstate Commerce RequirementPayroll Record Inadequacy
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Martone v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority-Metro

In 2005 and 2007, a bus driver (claimant) suffered work-related neck and back injuries. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, determining he had a permanent partial disability with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity based on medical evidence and other factors. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing a lack of substantial evidence for the partial disability finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting medical reports indicating submaximal efforts, high medication dosages, symptom magnification, and the ability to ambulate, which supported the finding of partial disability. The court also upheld the 75% loss of wage-earning capacity, finding it supported by substantial evidence after considering the claimant's impairment, work restrictions, age, education, and work experience.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityChronic Pain SyndromeLumbar Spine SurgeryMedical EvidenceSubmaximal EffortsSymptom MagnificationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2003

Mannino v. J.A. Jones Construction Group, LLC

Plaintiff Salvatore Mannino, a demolition foreman, was injured after falling approximately 12 feet while removing metal grating from a roof opening during a renovation project at Rockefeller University. He claimed he was not provided with requested scaffolding or other safety devices. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment against Rockefeller University but denied it against the Jones defendants. On appeal, the order was modified to also grant the motion against the Jones defendants, recognizing them as the owner’s statutory agent. The court affirmed the denial of defendants' cross-motion for contractual indemnification due to outstanding issues of active negligence, upholding the contract's partial indemnification clause as compliant with General Obligations Law § 5-322.1.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationStatutory AgentDemolition WorkFall from HeightSafety DevicesAppellate DivisionActive Negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 1997

Bellafiore v. L & K Holding Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action brought under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff sustained injuries when a mobile scaffold spontaneously moved, causing it to tip over and crash. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, which the Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied. The appellate court subsequently reversed this order, granting the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The court determined that the plaintiff presented sufficient prima facie proof through affidavits from himself and a co-worker. The defendants' opposing evidence, which included statements from their president lacking personal knowledge, was deemed inadmissible hearsay and thus failed to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie showing.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)mobile scaffoldsummary judgmentliabilityhearsay evidenceappellate procedureconstruction accidentworkplace safetyNassau County
References
11
Case No. 79-895
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1981

Strait v. Mehlenbacher

The plaintiffs, Farmworker Legal Services of New York, Inc. (FLSNY) and its staff attorneys, filed a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the defendants' (Mehlenbacher) third counterclaim. The counterclaim, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that FLSNY violated the civil rights of migrant workers by interfering with their contractual relationships, privacy, and attempting to "stir up litigation" at the Mehlenbacher Labor Camp, and by refusing to leave the premises. Plaintiffs argued they were a federal agency and federal employees, thus acting under federal, not state, authority, which is a prerequisite for a § 1983 claim. The court found defendants' allegations of conspiracy with state agents insufficient and their interrogatories overly broad, failing to establish that plaintiffs acted "under color of state law." Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim.

Civil Rights ActionSummary Judgment MotionCounterclaim DismissalFederal Question JurisdictionState Action Requirement42 U.S.C. Section 1983Legal Services CorporationMigrant Workers' RightsConspiracy AllegationsDiscovery Abuse
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1994

Klapa v. O&Y Liberty Plaza Co.

Plaintiff Janusz Klapa, an employee of United National Environmental Services Co., Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold lacking guardrails during asbestos removal from defendants' building. The IAS Court initially denied Klapa's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling he failed to prove the absence of guardrails was the proximate cause, despite acknowledging a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed this decision. The Appellate Division determined that Klapa had established a prima facie case of defendants' failure to provide adequate protection under Labor Law § 240 (1), and his testimony, even without detailing the exact cause of his fall, was sufficient given the irrelevance of contributory negligence. Consequently, the appellate court granted Klapa's motion for partial summary judgment on liability and dismissed the separate appeal concerning motions to reargue and renew as moot.

Scaffold AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseContributory NegligenceAsbestos RemovalAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryAbsolute Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liverio v. Clover Leaf 82 Associates

Plaintiff was injured on a construction site, falling through a suspended ceiling, and subsequently filed an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, alleging absolute liability against the defendants, but the Supreme Court denied this motion. The plaintiff appealed the decision. The appellate court found that there were factual disputes regarding the provision of adequate protective devices and whether any statutory violation was the proximate cause of the injuries. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying partial summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction SafetyFall from HeightPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseQuestion of FactGuardrailWorker Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1988

Litizia v. Jonathan Woodner Co.

Gino Litizia, a worker, was injured on a construction site in Queens when struck by falling lumber. He sued Technical Concrete Corp. and Jonathan Woodner Co., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for lack of protective devices. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary judgment on liability, but the Appellate Division modified this decision. The court denied the motion for partial summary judgment, reinstating comparative negligence defenses, reasoning that proximate cause is generally a jury question and that Technical Concrete Corp.'s agency status needed further determination.

Construction AccidentFalling Object InjuryScaffolding LawLabor Law ViolationSummary JudgmentProximate CauseComparative NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityElevated Work Site Risk
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 1993

Robinson v. NAB Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. This decision was subsequently reversed on appeal, resulting in the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment being granted. The appellate court found the plaintiff, a construction worker, was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to a defective scaffold-ladder lacking safety devices, which was the proximate cause of her injuries. The defendants failed to demonstrate any triable issues of fact. The court affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability for elevation-related risks, and factors like rain or minor testimonial inconsistencies do not negate the claim, nor is comparative negligence a valid defense.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold-ladder defectConstruction site accidentAbsolute liabilitySummary judgmentProximate causeComparative negligenceElevation-related riskAppellate decisionWorker safety
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2009

Kindlon v. Schoharie Central School District

A plaintiff, a subcontractor's employee, was injured after falling through a roof during school renovations, leading to an action alleging Labor Law violations against the building owner (Schoharie Central School District), the general contractor (LeChase Construction Services, LLC), and the construction manager (Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc.). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment but granted Bovis's cross-motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Bovis, finding that as a construction manager, Bovis lacked the necessary authority to control the work or safety protocols. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of the plaintiff's motion against the school district and LeChase, granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment against them. It held that the owner and general contractor violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide adequate elevation-related safety devices.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentOwner liabilityContractor liabilityConstruction manager liabilitySafety devicesRoof workSchoharie County
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 2,322 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