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. 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. 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

Candela v. New York City School Construction Authority

Plaintiff Calogero Candela sustained injuries when a window sash fell on him at a construction site. He brought a claim under Labor Law § 200 against the New York City School Construction Authority, Spacemaster Building Systems, LLC, and TDX-Becom. A jury initially found in favor of the defendants, implicitly concluding they lacked notice of the defective windows. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the jury had no reasonable basis to reject testimony indicating the defendants, particularly Spacemaster, had actual or constructive notice of widespread window balance system defects prior to the accident.

Construction AccidentWindow DefectLabor LawPremises LiabilityNoticeJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNegligenceWorkplace SafetyFalling Object
References
4
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 01555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2016

Lois v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC

Plaintiff Jorge Lois, an employee of J&R Glassworks, Inc., sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC and Bass Associates, LLC, after slipping and falling on a plastic tarp and broken concrete at a construction site. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss Lois's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and their contractual indemnification claim against J&R. The court denied both motions, finding issues of fact regarding Bass Associates' role as an owner, the defendants' responsibility for the hazardous condition, and the applicability of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2). Additionally, J&R failed to demonstrate an absence of factual issues concerning its notice of the hazardous condition, thereby upholding the contractual indemnification claim against it.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSlip and FallThird-Party ActionOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityHazardous Condition
References
7
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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dow v. Silver Construction Corp.

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits in 2005, asserting lung disease caused by workplace exposure to asbestos while employed by Silver Construction Corporation in 1961. Silver alleged claimant was actually employed by its predecessor, Rizzi Associates. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge subsequently placed Rizzi on notice as a potential employer. On review, the Workers’ Compensation Board found insufficient evidence to place Rizzi on notice, removed them, and continued the case to resolve the employer-employee relationship. Silver appealed this interlocutory decision. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, ruling the Board's decision was interlocutory and not final, thus not appealable at this stage to avoid piecemeal review of the case's issues.

Workers' Compensation BoardInterlocutory DecisionEmployer LiabilityAsbestos DiseaseAppellate ProcedureDismissed AppealEmployer-Employee RelationshipNotice Requirement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeMaria v. RBNB 20 Owner, LLC

This appellate decision modifies and affirms prior orders regarding a construction site accident where the plaintiff was injured by a sprinkler pipe and alleged inadequate lighting. The plaintiff's injuries led to claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) against multiple defendants, including Linden Construction Corp., Forest Electric Corp., owner defendants, and Newmark Construction Services, LLC. The court granted Linden summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding it did not directly create the hazard or have notice, but denied it for Labor Law § 241(6) due to its role as a statutory agent through its sub-subcontractor, Tower Interior Corp. Forest's motions for summary judgment on all claims were denied due to unresolved issues of fact regarding inadequate lighting and notice. The owner defendants were granted summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, but Newmark, the construction manager, was denied summary judgment on those claims because of a dispute regarding its notice of the inadequate lighting. Furthermore, summary judgment for contractual indemnification claims was largely denied for all parties, as triable issues of fact remain regarding the respective liabilities of Linden's sub-subcontractor and Forest's role in the inadequate lighting.

Construction site accidentSprinkler pipe hazardInadequate lightingSummary judgmentCommon-law negligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Statutory agent liabilityContractual indemnificationSubcontractor liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2007

Uzar v. Louis P. Ciminelli Construction Co.

Plaintiffs appealed an order that granted summary judgment to defendants Turner Construction Company and Louis P Ciminelli Construction Co., Inc., dismissing their complaint in a personal injury action arising from a construction accident involving Robert Uzar. The Supreme Court's decision was affirmed, with the appellate court determining that Turner, as construction manager, was not liable under Labor Law § 241 (6) because it lacked responsibility for worker safety and control over subcontractors. Additionally, Ciminelli was found not liable under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 as it did not have supervisory control over the plaintiff's work or create the dangerous condition. The appellate court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that Turner acted as a general contractor or agent of the County, and similarly found no triable issue of fact regarding Ciminelli's liability. Therefore, the order dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law ClaimsContractor LiabilityConstruction ManagerWorker SafetySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 5,597 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