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

Fitzgerald v. New York City School Construction Authority

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants New York City School Construction Authority, New York City Board of Education, and Pillar Construction, Inc., dismissing causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6). The case involved an injured plaintiff who was struck by a backing forklift without a signal person. The plaintiffs argued a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (d), which requires guidance for backing trucks. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the specific safety regulation cited (12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (d)) was inapplicable to forklifts, which are governed by 12 NYCRR 23-9.8, a provision lacking the explicit guidance requirement. As the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court's decision was upheld.

Construction SafetyPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeForklift AccidentAppellate ReviewSafety RegulationsNondelegable DutyWorkers' Rights
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03976
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Passantino v. City of New York

The case involves Joseph Passantino, who suffered a trip and fall on a scaffold in a fenced-off, locked construction area. Defendants New York City School Construction Authority and Admiral Construction LLC sought to compel depositions of two former Department of Education principals. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the cross-motion of defendants City of New York and New York City Department of Education to quash the subpoenas, finding the depositions futile as the principals lacked personal knowledge of the fall or alleged hazards. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concurring that the deposition testimony was not material and necessary.

DisclosureExamination Before TrialSubpoenasQuash SubpoenaTrip and FallScaffold AccidentConstruction SitePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewDiscovery Dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2016

Baugh v. New York City School Construction Authority

Olando Baugh appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The Court found that Baugh established a prima facie case that Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated and proximately caused his injuries because he was provided an unsecured ladder, which was not sufficient to prevent his fall. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted against the New York City School Construction Authority, the City of New York, and Plaza Construction Corp.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary judgmentLiabilityLadder fallSafety devicesProximate causeAppellate reviewNondelegable duty
References
8
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2002

Abdelaal v. Gindi

This case involves an appeal by Astra Construction Corp. and Preferred Mutual Insurance Company from an order granting summary judgment to City Construction Co. The underlying action was commenced by a plaintiff, an employee of City Construction Co., to recover damages for personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The plaintiff received Workers' Compensation benefits from City Construction Co.'s insurer. Astra, a contractor, and its insurer, Preferred Mutual, were brought into a third-party action by the property owners, and Astra subsequently cross-claimed against City Construction Co. for contribution and common-law indemnification. City Construction Co. moved for summary judgment, invoking the Workers' Compensation Law's affirmative defense, arguing that it was responsible for compensation benefits and the worker did not sustain a grave injury, nor was there a written indemnification agreement. The court found that City Construction Co. satisfied its burden for summary judgment, and Astra failed to present admissible evidence to raise a triable issue of fact. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order, which granted summary judgment dismissing Astra's cross claims against City Construction Co., was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsContributionIndemnificationPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityGrave InjuryAppellate DecisionKings County
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06178
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2021

Mutual Aid Assn. of the Paid Fire Dept. of the City of Yonkers, N.Y., Inc. v. City of Yonkers

The plaintiff, a union representing firefighters in Yonkers, initiated an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Yonkers and other entities regarding the construction of a new firehouse for the Ridge Hill development. The plaintiff contended that the City defendants were in violation of SEQRA and other legal duties for failing to construct the firehouse. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, interpreting the SEQRA documents as mandating the firehouse. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division found that the SEQRA documents and City Council resolutions did not unambiguously require the construction of a new firehouse, but rather specified other mitigation measures. The court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for the entry of a judgment declaring in favor of the defendants.

State Environmental Quality Review ActSEQRADeclaratory Judgment ActionInjunctive ReliefMunicipal LawLand Use DevelopmentZoning BoardFire Protection ServicesMixed-Use DevelopmentAppellate Procedure
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04761
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2022

Zong Wang Yang v. City of New York

The case involves Zong Wang Yang, an injured worker, and his wife suing various defendants for personal injuries sustained from a fall at a construction site due to inadequate planking over a shaft. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability against the City defendants (City of New York, Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, and Plaza Construction, LLC). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this denial, granting the plaintiffs' motion, asserting that the shaft was not properly protected and the worker's alleged comparative negligence was not the sole proximate cause. The court also affirmed the denial of ZHN Contracting Corporation's motion to dismiss negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and upheld the granting of contractual indemnification to Plaza Construction, LLC from A-Tech Electric Enterprises, Inc.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityElevation-Related HazardProximate CauseContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction AccidentPersonal Injury
References
27
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07282 [144 AD3d 714]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2016

Arnell Constr. Corp. v. New York City School Constr. Auth.

This case involves an appeal by Arnell Construction Corporation (plaintiff) from an order that granted summary judgment to New York City School Construction Authority (defendant) and denied Arnell's cross-motion. The central dispute was whether the plaintiff was contractually obligated to install a sidewalk shed as 'extra work' during a school renovation project. The Appellate Division found the contract language ambiguous regarding the sidewalk shed requirement and noted insufficient evidence from both parties concerning the scope of work and the applicable building codes. Consequently, the court modified the Supreme Court's order by denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, while affirming the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion, concluding that triable issues of fact remain.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentConstruction LawContract InterpretationSidewalk ShedBuilding Code ComplianceAmbiguous ContractAppellate DivisionDamagesExtra Work
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russgood Construction Co. v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal from a judgment regarding a construction contract with an indemnification provision. The plaintiffs, a contractor, had an agreement with the City of New York to hold the city harmless for claims related to the work. An engineer for the city suffered a heart attack while inspecting the work and successfully filed a Workers' Compensation claim. The City then withheld final payment to the contractor, claiming the contractor was responsible under the indemnity clause for the Workers' Compensation award. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the contractor, but the appellate court reversed, finding the indemnification agreement clear and unambiguous in covering all claims connected to the work. The case was remanded to the trial court for a new hearing to actuarially compute the unliquidated amounts due, allowing all parties to present evidence.

Indemnification ClauseConstruction ContractWorkers' CompensationHeart AttackPre-existing ConditionAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationRemandActuarial ComputationLiability
References
3
Case No. ADJ9419247
Regular
Aug 09, 2016

GUADALUPE ALVAREZ vs. CITY WALL CONSTRUCTION, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order finding the applicant was not an employee of City Wall Construction. The applicant claimed a work injury to his back and foot, but the judge found his testimony regarding employment lacked credibility against the defendant's consistent testimony. The Board also rejected the applicant's request to reopen based on newly discovered evidence, as he failed to demonstrate due diligence in discovering and presenting this information at trial. Therefore, the applicant did not meet his burden of proof to establish an employer-employee relationship.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGuadalupe AlvarezCity Wall ConstructionThe Hartford Insurance CompanyADJ9419247denial of reconsiderationindustrial injuryconstruction workeremployment statusnewly discovered evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,988 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