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

Brian Fay Construction, Inc. v. Morstan General Agency, Inc.

Brian Fay Construction, Inc. (plaintiff) contracted with J.E Spano and Company, agreeing to indemnify Spano. The plaintiff then instructed its insurance agents, DFW Associates, Inc. and Douglass Fenning (together DFW), and later Morstan General Agency, Inc., to add Spano as an additional insured to its general liability policy with Burlington Insurance Company. An employee of Brian Fay Construction was injured, leading to a claim against Spano and a third-party action against the plaintiff. Burlington denied coverage, citing an employee exclusion and stating there was no evidence Spano was an additional insured. The plaintiff sued the agents for failing to properly procure insurance, seeking a declaration that they were obligated to defend and indemnify. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that Burlington would have been obligated to cover the claim even if Spano had been properly named as an additional insured.

Insurance Broker LiabilityAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentDuty to Procure InsuranceIndemnificationGeneral Liability PolicyEmployee Liability ExclusionAppellate ReviewConstruction ContractInsurance Coverage Dispute
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Region v. W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding the electrocution death of a construction worker and the application of Labor Law § 240. The decedent, Grover J. Region, an ironworker employed by McBrearity's Metal Building Erectors, was fatally injured on November 18, 1982, when a crane cable he was helping to operate came into contact with high tension electric lines at a construction site in Ulster County. The plaintiff, administratrix of the decedent's estate, filed a lawsuit against property owner William J. Woodward and contractor W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc., among others, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide proper safety measures for crane operation near electrical hazards. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against Woodward and Woodward Construction, who subsequently appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that the defendants had violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to implement necessary safety precautions for the crane, which was being used as a hoist, thereby incurring absolute liability for the injuries proximately caused.

ElectrocutionConstruction AccidentCrane OperationLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityWorker SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Forbes

Joseph Patrick Williams was injured in a 1984 fall at the Armbrusters' property where William Forbes was a general contractor. Williams, who received workers' compensation benefits, sued Forbes and the Armbrusters. Forbes, having impleaded Williams's employers David Rowe and D. Rowe Home Improvements, sought to amend his answer to include a Workers' Compensation Law defense and moved for summary judgment, which the court denied, although it granted the Armbrusters' cross-motion for summary judgment. Forbes appealed the denial of his summary judgment motion. Williams subsequently moved to dismiss Forbes's appeal as untimely. The court denied Williams's motion, ruling that the 30-day appeal period under CPLR 5513(a) only begins when the appellant is served notice of entry by the prevailing party, not by co-defendants like the Armbrusters. Consequently, Forbes's appeal was deemed timely.

AppealTimeliness of AppealService of NoticeCPLR 5513Workers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissNassau CountyAppellate DivisionPrevailing Party
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00027
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2022

Williams v. Beth Israel Hosp. Assn.

Lisa Williams, an employee of a staffing agency assigned to Beth Israel Medical Center, filed a negligence claim after a trip and fall incident. Beth Israel Medical Center moved for summary judgment, arguing that Williams's sole remedy was under the Workers' Compensation Law due to a special employer relationship, and that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss and for summary judgment but granted leave to amend the answer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Beth Israel Medical Center failed to demonstrate a clear surrender and assumption of control for the special employer defense and did not establish a prima facie lack of constructive or actual notice.

NegligenceTrip and FallPremises LiabilitySpecial Employer DoctrineWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeActual NoticeAppellate ReviewStaffing Agency
References
11
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

Sean O’Sullivan, a cement and concrete laborer, was injured on October 14, 2000, when he tripped over a pipe at a multistory construction site in Manhattan. The property was owned by 251 East 51st Street Corp., with IDI Construction Company as the general contractor. O'Sullivan's employer, Cosner Construction, was the concrete subcontractor, and Teman Electrical Construction, Inc. was the electrical subcontractor. This document presents a dissenting opinion arguing that while there is no viable claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), questions of fact remain regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which should preclude summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action. The dissent highlights that the pipe, which was permanently embedded in the floor and not barricaded or sufficiently visible, could constitute an unsafe condition. It suggests the owner and general contractor might be liable due to their potential input into the pipe's placement and the general contractor's assigned 'site safety manager'. The dissenting judges would reverse the extent of denying summary judgment for the defendant with respect to the Labor Law § 200 claim and reinstate it.

Construction accidentTrip and fallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceWorkplace safetySummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityProperty owner liabilitySubcontractor responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giordano v. Forest City Ratner Companies

Brian Giordano, a carpenter, was injured at a construction site when a sheet of plywood struck him. He sued F.C. Foley Square Associates, LLC, and FCR Construction Services, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code sections 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a) and 23-2.4. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims based on both sections. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal regarding 12 NYCRR 23-2.4, finding it inapplicable to poured concrete construction. However, the court reversed the dismissal concerning 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a), stating that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because the Court of Appeals had previously reversed a similar precedent regarding the applicability of this section to incomplete forms.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodePlywood InjuryConcrete WorkFlooring RequirementsAppellate DecisionPrima Facie Entitlement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaehn v. Lahr Construction Corp.

Plaintiff sustained injuries after falling while repositioning a prefabricated interior staircase at a construction site. The staircase abruptly fell into the stairwell, causing the plaintiff to fall on top of it. Plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for these injuries, alleging liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against Lahr Construction Corp., doing business as LeCesse Construction Company, Winchester Construction Corp., Cloverwood Senior Living, Inc., and Rochester Friendly Senior Services. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants and third-party defendants appealed this amended order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the worksite was 'elevated' as per Labor Law § 240 (1) and the defendants' failure to provide necessary safety devices established their liability for the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentFall from ElevationLabor LawStatutory LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorksite SafetyStaircase AccidentElevated Work
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walls v. Turner Construction Co.

This case concerns an appeal from an order regarding Labor Law claims against Turner Construction Company and Jordan Construction Company. The original order denied summary judgment to Turner for dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on their § 240 (1) claim against Turner, and denied Jordan's motion to amend its answer for a recalcitrant worker defense. It also denied Jordan summary judgment for dismissal of Turner's cross claims for contractual indemnification, contribution, and failure to procure insurance, while granting summary judgment to Turner on that cross claim. The appellate court modified the original order by dismissing Turner's cross claim concerning Jordan's failure to obtain insurance, but otherwise affirmed the order. A dissenting opinion argued that Turner, as construction manager, was not the owner's statutory agent for liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) due to limited authority.

Labor LawStatutory AgentConstruction ManagementContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsFailure to Procure InsuranceAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,593 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