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
Jun 20, 2005

Hageman v. B & G Building Services, LLC

The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at a Home Depot store, initially sued Home Depot, and later commenced an action against B & G Building Services, LLC (Building) for personal injuries. Building cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was the plaintiff's employer and that the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law due to an alter ego or joint venturer relationship with the plaintiff's direct employers, the Electrical corporations. The Supreme Court granted Building's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was reversed; the appellate court determined that Building failed to provide sufficient proof to establish an alter ego or joint venturer relationship, which would legally prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with the personal injury action under the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityDemolition AccidentAppellate ReviewNassau CountyConstruction Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fioranelli v. News Building Corp.

Anthony Fioranelli sued News Building Corporation for injuries sustained during employment. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that Workers' Compensation was the exclusive remedy because News Building Corporation was effectively the plaintiff's employer, New York News, Inc., due to corporate merger. Prior motions to dismiss on these grounds were denied on procedural issues. This court, however, found that New York News, Inc. was indeed the building's owner at the time of the accident under Business Corporation Law § 906(b)(2). Consequently, the court ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 provided the plaintiff's sole remedy, dismissing the action against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation exclusivityCorporate mergerBuilding ownershipCPLR dismissal motionLaw of the Case doctrineBusiness Corporation LawEmployer liabilityPersonal injury claimProcedural lawSubstantive law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huether v. New York Times Building, LLC

Plaintiff John Huether, a carpenter, sustained injuries while unloading drywall from a truck during the construction of the New York Times Building. The accident occurred when an unsecured steel plate, used to bridge an 8-10 inch gap between the truck and loading dock, shifted, causing a dolly loaded with drywall to tip and crush his right leg. Plaintiffs sued building owners, general contractors, and the truck operator, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The court granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as not gravity-related. For Labor Law § 241(6), the court found 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b)(3) applicable and violated, granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment, while other cited Industrial Code provisions were deemed inapplicable. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were dismissed against the building owners (NYT) due to lack of control, but were allowed to proceed against the general contractors (Turner and Amec) due to disputed facts regarding their control over the work methods and notice of unsafe conditions.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentLoading Dock SafetyUnsecured Bridging PlateIndustrial Code ViolationsGeneral Contractor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkPremises Condition
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivares, Emilio v. Alfonso Mares, and Multi-Building, Inc.

Emilio Olivares, an injured construction worker, sued Alfonso Mares and Multi-Building, Inc., alleging negligence and premises liability after falling from an unsecured joist. Following a jury trial, the court awarded damages but reduced Olivares's past lost wages. On appeal, Olivares challenged the exclusion of a subcontract, the jury charge focusing on premises liability, the omission of Multi-Building from a negligent activity question, and the reduction of the lost wages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury charge, the exclusion of the subcontract, or the reduction of lost wages, and dismissed Multi-Building's conditional cross-points as moot.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLost WagesJury Charge ErrorEvidence ExclusionSubcontract DisputeTexas LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
28
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. 01-07-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

in Re Bison Building Materials, Ltd.

Bison Building Materials, Ltd., a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, established an employee injury plan with an arbitration clause. Employee Tracy Sambrano was injured, received benefits, but then sued Bison for negligence, despite signing a post-injury waiver. The trial court denied Bison's motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the court held that Sambrano had accepted the arbitration terms by continued employment and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws that would prevent enforcement. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to compel arbitration, finding Bison had not waived its right, and dismissed Sambrano's interlocutory appeal.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA)Workers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanERISA PreemptionMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealWaiver of ArbitrationContract Defenses
References
44
Case No. 08-18-00005-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2018

Caples Land Company, L.L.C. v. the City of El Paso, Texas and Its Building and Standards Commission

Caples Land Company, L.L.C. appealed a substantial civil penalty levied by the City of El Paso's Building and Standards Commission concerning the 'American Furniture Building'. The dispute originated from compliance issues and the assessment of an initial $2.1 million fine, later reduced to $1.2 million by the district court. Caples Land argued violations of due process, the discriminatory application of a vague Vacant Building Ordinance, and that the fine constituted a regulatory taking exceeding the property's value. The district court upheld the Commission's order as legal and enforceable, but modified the daily civil penalty amount. This appeal seeks reversal or remand of that final judgment.

Building StandardsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineRegulatory TakingExcessive FinesProperty LawMunicipal LawAppellate ProcedureEl Paso County
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1987

Greenpoint Renaissance Enterprise Corp. v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal concerning the City of New York's plan to increase the number of buildings used as a shelter for homeless men at the Greenpoint Hospital site. Petitioners, including the Greenpoint Renaissance Enterprise Corporation, sought compliance with the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) and the filing of an environmental impact statement (EIS), and an injunction against using the West Building. The Supreme Court initially granted relief. On appeal, the judgment was modified, deleting findings on environmental impact and vacating the injunction. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making administrative decisions regarding environmental impact and that an emergency exemption applied to the West Building, allowing the city to proceed.

Homeless Shelter ExpansionEnvironmental ReviewLand Use ProcedureInjunctionEmergency ExemptionGreenpoint HospitalSEQRA ComplianceCEQR ComplianceULURP ComplianceJudicial Review Scope
References
6
Case No. 03-02-00611-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2003

Texas Building Owners and Managers Association, Inc. Building Owners and Managers Association International Tanglewood Property Management Company Emissary Group 5599 San Felipe, Ltd. And the Real Access Alliance v. the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the State of Texas

This case concerns the scope of the Public Utility Commission's power to enforce the Building Access Statutes (Texas Utilities Code §§ 54.259-.261). Appellants, consisting of property management organizations and trade groups, sued the Commission, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Statutes are unconstitutional on their face and a permanent injunction. They argued the statutes cause a taking of their property without adequate compensation and that the Commission lacks delegated power to determine compensation. The district court declared the Statutes facially constitutional and denied injunctive relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the legislature constitutionally delegated to the Commission the power to determine 'reasonable' and 'nondiscriminatory' compensation, providing sufficient guidance and an adequate process for obtaining compensation.

Telecommunications regulationPublic Utility CommissionBuilding Access StatutesConstitutional lawTakings clauseDelegation of powerProperty rightsTelecommunications utilitiesCompetitive marketplaceFacial unconstitutionality
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Hovnanian Co., Inc.

Plaintiff was injured at a construction site when his head was pinned between sheetrock and a wall due to the horizontal movement of a load being unloaded by an extension boom. He sued the site owner (defendant) for Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) violations. The defendant brought a third-party action against plaintiff's employer, Strober King Building Supply Corporation. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion to amend his bill of particulars and denied Strober's cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding the injury was not a gravity-related hazard. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, citing a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-8.2(c)(3) concerning the use of tag lines for horizontal load movement. The common-law safe place to work claim under Labor Law § 200 was also noted as remaining unresolved.

Construction AccidentLabor LawWorkplace SafetyGravity-Related HazardHorizontal MovementMobile Crane OperationTag LinesSummary JudgmentBill of ParticularsAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,173 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