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

Gallagher v. New York Post

Hugh Gallagher, an ironworker, sustained injuries after falling through an uncovered opening at a work site owned by NYP Holdings, Inc., while cutting metal decking. He and his wife sued NYP, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), specifically failure to provide safety devices. NYP contended that safety devices were available and that Gallagher's premature return to work after a prior injury was the sole proximate cause of his fall. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division initially denied summary judgment for plaintiffs, citing factual disputes regarding device availability and Gallagher's conduct. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, and NYP failed to demonstrate that Gallagher knew of available safety devices and unreasonably chose not to use them, or that his prior injury was the sole proximate cause. The Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Ironworker injuryConstruction accidentFall from heightLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffolding LawSafety devicesProximate causeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewPersonal injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tennant v. Curcio

This dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff in a Labor Law § 240 (1) case. The dissent contends that a question of fact exists regarding the 'recalcitrant worker' defense when there is uncontroverted evidence that an employee failed to comply with a direct instruction from their employer to use an available safety device. The dissenting judge emphasizes that the mere availability of safety devices is not enough, but when coupled with a direct instruction, it should create a factual issue. The opinion references previous cases, *Hickey v Perry & Sons* and *Vona v St. Peter’s Hosp.*, to support the argument that the requirement for a safety device to be 'available' should not be narrowly construed as 'visible.' Therefore, the dissent concludes that the Supreme Court's order should have been affirmed.

Recalcitrant Worker DefenseLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder SafetyEmployer InstructionsSafety DevicesSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyNegligence
References
5
Case No. 34 SSM 30
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2020

Waldemar Biaca-Neto v. Boston Road II Housing Development Fund Corporation

Plaintiff Waldemar Biaca-Neto sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold while attempting to enter a building through a window cutout. Defendants, including Mountco Construction and Development Corp., sought summary judgment, arguing plaintiff's failure to use available safety devices was the sole proximate cause of his injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1). The New York Court of Appeals determined that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff knew he was expected to use the safety devices, considering an alleged "accepted practice" of entering through window cut-outs. The Court modified the Appellate Division's order, denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) and related loss of consortium claims, and affirmed as modified. A dissenting opinion contended that plaintiff's own negligence, in choosing convenience over safety despite available devices, was the sole proximate cause.

Scaffolding accidentConstruction worker injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Sole proximate causeSummary judgment motionTriable issue of factWorker safety devicesLoss of consortiumAppellate reviewNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2002

DePalma v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The plaintiff's husband died after falling 35 feet from an I-beam while working on air conditioning equipment installation. He was operating a derrick and fell while untying a tag line. Safety harnesses were available at the site but were not readily accessible. The IAS court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing factual disputes regarding the provision of safety devices and proximate cause. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no evidence that the decedent refused to use available safety equipment and confirming his actions were within the scope of his duties. The court also rejected the recalcitrant worker defense, emphasizing that a worker's mere negligence does not create a factual issue regarding causation if safety devices were not properly provided and constructed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityFall from HeightConstruction AccidentSafety DevicesProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseContributory NegligenceDerrick Operation
References
7
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07571 [133 AD3d 87]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2015

Quinones v. Olmstead Props., Inc.

Pedro Quinones, an employee of North Shore Neon Sign, was injured while painting graffiti on a billboard leased by Fuel Outdoor, LLC. He fell from concrete blocks, having reportedly forgone available safety equipment like a cherry picker, ladders, and a safety harness, which he claimed were inadequate due to site conditions. The Supreme Court initially granted Quinones partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting a failure to provide proper safety devices. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding conflicting evidence regarding the adequacy of the safety devices and whether Quinones' actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby necessitating a trial. The dissenting opinion argued that Fuel's expert failed to adequately counter Quinones' claims of device inadequacy.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFall from heightSafety devicesSole proximate causeAppellate DivisionWorker injuryBillboard maintenanceConstruction accidentElevation risk
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Singh v. Barrett

Plaintiff, an employee of Jimco Restoration Corporation, was injured on August 8, 1990, while performing restoration work that involved removing a second floor at 102 Charles Street in Manhattan. He fell to the floor below when a supporting joist gave way. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide proper safety devices. The defendant owner opposed, claiming the plaintiff refused to use available safety equipment, citing an unsworn accident report. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, finding an issue of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability. The appellate court ruled that the doctrine of refusal to use safety devices was inapplicable as there was no proof that properly constructed, placed, and operated safety devices were provided. The court also affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) applied to the work due to the elevation-related hazards created by floor removal.

Labor Law Section 240 (1)Absolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentFall from HeightWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewDuty to Provide Safety EquipmentRefusal to Use Safety Devices
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 1999

Harrington v. State

Claimant Michael Harrington was injured on a State-owned bridge when he slid down a containment tarp that ripped, despite having been provided with a lanyard and harness. The Court of Claims found him to be a recalcitrant worker, concluding he deliberately refused to use available safety devices. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court finding sufficient evidence that safety devices were available at his immediate work site and that his voluntary act of sliding down the tarp was the sole and superseding cause of his injuries. The case discusses the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) and the recalcitrant worker defense.

Recalcitrant Worker DefenseLabor Law § 240 (1)Workplace SafetyConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryAbsolute LiabilitySafety Device AvailabilityProximate CauseSole and Superseding CauseAppellate Affirmation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLean v. Martin E. Vahue & Son Builders, Inc.

Plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained injuries after falling over 20 feet from the roof of a house under construction. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment regarding liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to prove engagement in construction, a fall from an elevated worksite, and the absence of adequate safety devices. The defendant and third-party defendant failed to present a triable issue of fact, and their argument that the accident was caused by the plaintiff's refusal to use other available safety devices was rejected, reaffirming that a contractor cannot avoid absolute liability by merely having other safety devices present on the job site.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate CourtReversalMotion GrantedElevated Work
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2007

Kosavick v. Tishman Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, a demolition worker, was injured when he fell from an unsecured A-frame ladder after being struck by a section of pipe he had cut. The court found that adequate safety devices were not provided, and the ladder was unsecured. The defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident, as there was no evidence he chose not to use an available safety device or that suitable anchor points were available at the accident location. The Supreme Court's order denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability was reversed, and the motion was granted, remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffolding LawFalling ObjectFall from ElevationDemolition WorkA-frame LadderSafety DevicesProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arey v. M. Dunn, Inc.

Plaintiff Gerald Arey, a carpentry subcontractor, was injured when he fell from a roof during construction in a residential subdivision. He and his wife initiated an action against the property owner, M. Dunn, Inc., and contractors, Homeland Development Corporation and Peter Belmonte Builders, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, a decision subsequently appealed by the defendants. Defendants contended that Arey was an employer and therefore not entitled to Labor Law protections, and attempted to assert contributory negligence and the recalcitrant worker defense. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, concluding that the defendants failed to provide mandated safety devices, that contributory negligence is not a valid defense, and that the recalcitrant worker defense was inapplicable due to the absence of available safety devices at the site. The court underscored the nondelegable duty of owners and contractors under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)Fall ProtectionConstruction AccidentPartial Summary JudgmentRecalcitrant Worker DefenseContributory NegligenceNondelegable DutySubcontractor InjuryAppellate AffirmationSafety Devices
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,325 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