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

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05955 [174 AD3d 850]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Davies v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Gerald Davies, was injured while pushing a cart of concrete over a plywood sheet that covered a hole at a construction site. He initiated an action against the premises operator, Simon Property Group, Inc., the general contractor, E.W. Howell Co., LLC, and the sidewalk removal company, Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). E.W. Howell Co., LLC also filed a third-party action against Allstate Interior Demolition Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's initial order, which partially granted and denied various summary judgment motions, was subject to appeals and cross-appeals. The Appellate Division ultimately reversed the order in part, granting Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and denying Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion concerning Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationElevation DifferentialScaffold LawIndustrial CodeSafe Work Environment
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02549 [216 AD3d 833]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2023

Santiago v. Hanley Group, Inc.

David Santiago, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a roof while performing construction work. He and his wife initiated a lawsuit against the general contractor, Hanley Group, Inc., asserting, among other claims, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against Hanley Group, Inc. Hanley Group, Inc. appealed, contending that it had complied with its statutory duty or that Santiago's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of its contentions and therefore affirmed the lower court's order.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafety Devices
References
6
Case No. 2023-00083 (Index No. 11032/18)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC

Alquidania Miolan appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which granted summary judgment to Milmar Food Group, LLC, and Milmar Food Group II, LLC. Miolan sought damages for personal injuries from a slip and fall at a facility operated by the Milmar defendants, where she was employed through a staffing agency. The Milmar defendants successfully argued that Miolan's claims were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, asserting they were her 'special employer.' The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Milmar defendants had established, prima facie, their status as Miolan's special employer. Consequently, the court concluded that Miolan's claims were barred by the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployerSummary JudgmentPersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewExclusivity ProvisionStaffing AgencyOrange CountyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04715 [207 AD3d 703]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2022

Ennis v. Noble Constr. Group, LLC

Plaintiff Ryan Ennis allegedly sustained personal injuries while working at a construction project when he attempted to avoid a fall from a ladder. He commenced an action against Noble Construction Group, LLC, the general contractor, and Atlantic Pacific Development Partners, LLC, the property owner, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted it on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, which was predicated upon violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and 23-1.21 (b) (4). On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and reversed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Labor LawPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLadder SafetyWorksite HazardIndustrial CodeNondelegable DutyProximate Cause
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03704 [206 AD3d 445]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2022

Zherka v. Hudson Meridian Constr. Group LLC

In Zherka v Hudson Meridian Construction Group LLC, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, which had granted plaintiff Ilir Zherka summary judgment on liability for Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and common-law negligence claims. The plaintiff was injured when a beam fell due to a lack of safety devices. The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment solely for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding no merit to the defendant's 'recalcitrant worker' defense given the absence of adequate safety devices. However, the court denied summary judgment for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, determining that the plaintiff's injuries arose from the manner of work, not a dangerous premises condition, and that the plaintiff failed to establish the general contractor, Hudson Meridian, supervised the workers beyond general supervisory authority.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceAppellate DivisionConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05928
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2025

Peralta v. Hunter Roberts Constr. Group LLC

Jose Peralta, a carpenter, was injured when scaffolding collapsed at a construction site, leading to a fractured foot. He sued the owner, RXR Garvies P1 Building H Owner LLC, and general contractor, Hunter Roberts Construction Group LLC, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a previous order, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the recalcitrant worker defense inapplicable. The court also granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Peralta's common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, as they did not control the means and methods of his work. Furthermore, defendants were granted summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against third-party defendant Golden Eagle Framing LLC, due to a failure to properly designate defendants as additional insureds on an excess policy.

Construction AccidentScaffolding CollapseLabor Law § 240(1)Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Recalcitrant Worker DefenseContractual IndemnificationAdditional InsuredSubcontractor LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09254
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2015

Guevera v. Simon Property Group, Inc.

Ignacio Guevera, an employee, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder due to an electrical shock while performing routine maintenance in a retail store. He sued Simon Property Group, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores, Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Guevera's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding Guevera's activity was routine maintenance, not covered by Labor Law §§ 240 (1) or 241 (6). Furthermore, the court determined the defendants lacked notice of the loose cable for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Another plaintiff's appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Personal InjuryFall from LadderLabor LawSummary JudgmentRoutine MaintenanceElectrical ShockPremises LiabilityAppellate DivisionWorkplace Safety
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04209
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2023

Mushkudiani v. Racanelli Constr. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Koba Mushkudiani, was injured at a construction site after falling through an improperly covered hole. He filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence against Racanelli Construction Group, Inc., and others. After initially denying summary judgment, the Supreme Court, upon reargument, granted the plaintiff's motion in its entirety. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this decision, affirming summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims due to elevation-related hazards and a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i), respectively. However, the court denied summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding insufficient evidence that the defendants created or had notice of the dangerous condition.

construction site injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)elevation-related hazardsummary judgmentreargumentproximate causerecalcitrant workerIndustrial Code § 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i)common-law negligence
References
19
Case No. 162 AD3d 988
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2018

Gargan v. Palatella Saros Bldrs. Group, Inc.

John Gargan, an employee of Kleet Lumber, sustained personal injuries at a construction site operated by Palatella Saros Builders Group, Inc. Gargan was injured while attempting to move empty pallets that were obstructing his delivery path. He and his wife subsequently filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no triable issues of fact regarding the defendant's liability under the asserted labor laws or common-law negligence.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Common-Law NegligenceConstruction Site SafetyDangerous ConditionSafe Place to WorkPremises Liability
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 15,465 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