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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06419 [154 AD3d 139]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2017

Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed consolidated wrongful death actions stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which caused the deaths of Donald Christopher Leo and Ramadan Kurtaj. Plaintiffs, including Maria Leo and Xhevahire Sinanaj, sued James F. Lomma and his companies (J.F. Lomma, Inc. and New York Crane & Equipment Corp.) alleging negligence and reckless conduct related to a defective crane bearing. The court affirmed the jury's decision to pierce the corporate veil and to preclude a defense expert, finding Lomma personally liable due to his actions. However, the appellate court significantly reduced the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, conscious pain and suffering, and punitive damages, deeming them excessive. The judgment was modified, contingent on the plaintiffs stipulating to the reduced amounts.

Crane CollapseWrongful DeathCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExpert Testimony PreclusionNegligenceConstruction AccidentConscious Pain and SufferingPreimpact TerrorDefective Weld
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black + Vernooy Architects v. Smith

Lou Ann Smith, Jimmy Jackson Smith (individually and as next friend of Rachel and Grayson Smith), and Karen E. Gravely (collectively, the Smiths) sued Black -l- Vernooy Architects, J. Sinclair Black, and D. Andrew Vernooy (collectively, the Architects) for negligence after a second-floor balcony designed by the Architects collapsed, causing severe injuries. The Architects had designed a vacation home for Robert and Kathy Maxfield. The general contractor, Nash Builders, Inc., hired subcontractor Steven Rodriguez, who built the balcony with significant deviations from the design drawings. A jury found the Architects 10% responsible, the general contractor 70%, and the subcontractor 20%. The district court entered judgment for the Smith family against the Architects. The appellate court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the Architects owed no duty, either contractually or under common law, to the Smiths as third-party visitors. The contract explicitly disavowed third-party beneficiaries and limited the Architects' control over construction methods, concluding that creating such a new common law duty was beyond its purview.

Architectural NegligenceThird-Party LiabilityContractual DutyCommon Law DutyDuty of CareConstruction DefectsBalcony CollapseForeseeability of InjuryRight to ControlAppellate Reversal
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2011

East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litigation v. Lincoln General Insurance

This Supreme Court order addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which led to multiple claims against the property owner, East 51st Street Development Company, LLC. The primary conflict involved insurance companies Lincoln General, AXIS Surplus, and Interstate Fire and Casualty regarding their duty to defend East 51st Street and reimburse Illinois Union Insurance Company for defense costs. Initially, the Supreme Court granted various motions for summary judgment, establishing duties to defend and determining policy priority. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying Lincoln General's assertions of excess coverage and declaring Lincoln General primarily obligated to provide coverage to East 51st Street. Other aspects, such as AXIS and Interstate's duty to share defense costs, and East 51st Street's status as an additional insured, were affirmed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendDefense Costs ReimbursementPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSummary Judgment MotionAdditional InsuredCrane Collapse LitigationPolicy InterpretationInsurance Policy Limits
References
9
Case No. 03-09-00518-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2011

Black + Vernooy Architects, J. Sinclair Black, and D. Andrew Vernooy v. Lou Ann Smith Jimmy Jackson Smith, Individually and as Next Friend of Rachel and Grayson Smith And Karen E. Graveley

Appellees Lou Ann Smith and Karen E. Gravely sustained severe injuries, including paraplegia for Lou Ann, when a balcony designed by Black + Vernooy Architects (Appellants) collapsed due to construction defects. The Smiths sued the Architects for negligence, and a jury found them partially responsible. On appeal, the Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the Architects owed no contractual or common law duty to the Smiths as third-party visitors to the home. The Court emphasized that the Architects' contract with the homeowners, the Maxfields, explicitly disavowed third-party beneficiaries and limited the Architects' oversight role without granting control over construction methods. The Court declined to create a new common law duty for architects under these circumstances, citing the significant burden and the availability of recourse against the general contractor and subcontractor.

NegligenceArchitect LiabilityContractual DutyCommon Law DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryBalcony CollapseConstruction DefectsProportional ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsDuty of Care
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2003

Gabriel v. Boldt Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Raun Duval Gabriel, a construction worker, was injured when a defective hoisting apparatus collapsed while he and a coworker were attempting to lift a heavy metal insert. The cross member holding the pulley collapsed, striking the plaintiff with the pulley and rope. The Appellate Division concluded that a defective hoist, collapsing during use, constitutes a falling object under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus entitling plaintiffs to partial summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction InjuryHoisting Equipment FailureFalling Object DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalWorkplace AccidentAbsolute LiabilityScaffolding LawDefective Device
References
1
Case No. ADJ8222509
Regular
May 12, 2015

SARAI CRUZ CANSECO vs. NEW DESSERTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employee's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment, unless the injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The applicant, employed for less than six months, injured her wrist and ankle when a bakery cart collapsed. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cart's collapse constituted a sudden and extraordinary event that did not bar the psychiatric claim. The dissenting commissioner argued the collapse was an unforeseen accident but not extraordinary enough to bypass the six-month rule, differentiating it from truly sudden and extraordinary events.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulebakery cart collapseindustrial injurycompensable consequenceroutine employment eventoccupational hazardno-fault system
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hudson 500 LLC v. Tower Insurance Co. of New York

This case involves a claim by plaintiff Hudson 500 LLC against Tower Insurance Company of New York for insurance coverage due to a partial collapse of its building on August 23, 2005. Defendant Tower moved for summary judgment, arguing the loss predated the policy period and did not constitute a 'collapse' as defined. Plaintiff Hudson moved for partial summary judgment on liability, asserting the damage was caused by hidden decay and was covered. The court found conflicting expert opinions regarding the cause and timing of the damage, and the interpretation of 'collapse' under New York law, specifically whether 'substantial impairment of structural integrity' without total destruction qualifies. Due to these unresolved factual disputes, both motions for summary judgment were denied.

Insurance CoverageProperty DamageBuilding CollapseSummary JudgmentHidden DecayStructural IntegrityNew York LawPolicy InterpretationExpert TestimonyConflicting Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1996

Lightfoot v. State

The claimants appealed an order denying their motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The injured claimant, employed by a company contracted by the State of New York to paint bridges, suffered injuries after falling from a truck platform when its safety guardrail collapsed. The court found that the collapse of the safety device constituted a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and was a proximate cause of the injuries, entitling claimants to judgment on liability. The State's argument that the claimant was adjusting the guardrail prior to collapse did not create a triable issue of fact, as the device itself was inadequate. Furthermore, the recalcitrant worker defense was not applicable due to lack of evidence that the claimant refused to use provided safety devices. The order was reversed, the claimants' motion was granted, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

personal injuryconstruction accidentscaffold lawsafety deviceproximate causesummary judgmentappellate reviewrecalcitrant worker defenselabor law violationguardrail collapse
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaur v. 1715 Avenue T Realty, LLC

Narinder Kaur, along with her husband, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when a staircase landing collapsed in a building owned by 1715 Avenue T Realty, LLC, during renovation work performed by Triple M Construction, Inc. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the issue of Triple M Construction, Inc.'s liability, arguing their work was the proximate cause of the collapse. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially granted this motion. However, upon appeal by Triple M Construction, Inc., the appellate court found conflicting evidence regarding whether Triple M's work was indeed the proximate cause of the collapse. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against Triple M Construction, Inc., and dismissed other appeals.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentsContractor NegligenceProximate CauseStaircase CollapseProperty Owner LiabilityKings County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trinity Industries, Inc. v. McKinnon Bridge Co.

McKinnon Bridge Company, Inc., a general contractor, appealed a trial court's decision holding it liable to its subcontractor, Trinity Industries, Inc., for costs related to a bridge collapse. Trinity and McKinnon had an agreement for structural steel fabrication, which included an indemnity clause. Following a bridge segment collapse, Trinity was sued in federal court and incurred significant defense and settlement costs. Trinity then sued McKinnon ("Trinity II") seeking indemnification based on a prior ruling ("Trinity I") that attributed the collapse solely to McKinnon's subcontractor, ABC Contractors, Inc. The trial court granted Trinity's motion for summary judgment and denied McKinnon's. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the indemnity clause was clear and that Trinity properly used collateral estoppel to prove ABC's negligence as the cause of the loss, an entity over which Trinity had no control.

Contract IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealCollateral EstoppelBridge CollapseNegligence AllegationsContract InterpretationTort LawConstruction LawAppellate Review
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 335 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