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

McFadden v. Lee

The plaintiff, a self-employed painter, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing exterior painting for the defendants at their home. He filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants did not exercise supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, which is a prerequisite for liability under these specific statutes and common-law negligence when the injury stems from the work method rather than a dangerous premises condition.

Personal InjuryLadder FallLabor Law 200Common Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionHomeowner LiabilityIndependent ContractorSupervisory AuthoritySafe Place to Work
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

D'Elia v. City of New York

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning personal injuries sustained while working as a surveyor. The original order granted summary judgment to defendants on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.23. The appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars and denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding defendants lacked supervisory authority over the plaintiff's work. The case involved an alleged fall on a steeply inclined slope made of loosely compacted dirt and rocks at a construction site.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentBill of Particulars AmendmentConstruction Site AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndustrial Code ViolationNegligenceAppellate ReviewEarthen Slope Fall
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2006

Amantia v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

Plaintiff, a subcontractor's worker, sued defendants for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence after falling from a cargo truck while unloading forms. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) and partially denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting defendants' motion in its entirety and dismissing the complaint. It found Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as there was no significant elevation risk, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, based on specific industrial code violations, were also dismissed due to their inapplicability to the facts.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFall from ElevationWorker SafetyNegligenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2011

De Oleo v. Charis Christian Ministries, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff sought recovery for injuries sustained during construction work at a building owned by Charis, whose employer was St. Loren Construction Corp. Charis, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs, moved for a default judgment on their third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification and contribution against St. Loren, the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting the motion as to the claim for common-law indemnification, while otherwise affirming. The appellate court found Charis provided sufficient proof of St. Loren's negligence and their own lack of negligence. It was also noted that Charis did not need to disprove Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as it must be pleaded as an affirmative defense.

common-law indemnificationcontractual indemnificationcontributiondefault judgmentconstruction injuryemployer negligenceaffirmative defenseappellate reviewmotion practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

Turchioe v. AT&T Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff, a laborer, sustained a back injury while manually transporting a heavy ductlift up a stairway with a co-worker, alleging the co-worker crouched and shifted the full weight onto him. The initial order granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified this, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, including all cross claims and third-party actions. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed as the lifting activity was not a 'special hazard'. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked evidence of lighting violations or causation by debris. The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed due to the absence of supervisory control by the owner or general contractor over the work.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentThird-Party ClaimsCommon Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityWorker Safety
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1999

Light v. Antedeminico

Roger Light, a maintenance worker for Pawling Corp., initiated this action against Anthony Antedeminico d/b/a Tony’s Construction, a subcontractor, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained after falling into an excavated pit. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the common-law negligence claim, maintaining that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendant's potential negligence. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original decision, prompting the defendant to appeal. The appellate court subsequently reversed the lower court's order, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. The court reasoned that the defendant successfully demonstrated a lack of sufficient control over the construction site, thereby owing no duty of care to the injured plaintiff, and the plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue of fact to counter this.

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDuty of CareConstruction SiteSubcontractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityDutchess CountyNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ZOLFAGHARI, MOSTAFA v. HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC

Plaintiff commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after falling from a ladder while removing a satellite dish at a gas station. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) and granted the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissing the main complaint. The court also granted Atlanta's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Exxon's third-party complaint for contractual indemnification, citing an express negation of third-party beneficiary intent. On appeal, the higher court rejected the plaintiff's arguments concerning Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), determining the work did not constitute 'alteration' or 'demolition'. Furthermore, Exxon's appeal regarding its coverage under the indemnification agreement was also rejected.

Labor LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentLadder FallSatellite Dish RemovalAlteration of BuildingDemolitionContractual IndemnificationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2012

Kuntz v. WNYG Housing Development Fund Co.

This case concerns a plaintiff's appeal from a denial of partial summary judgment in a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. The plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold at a construction site. The core issue revolves around whether the defendants provided adequate safety devices under Labor Law § 240 (1) and if the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the fall. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion and the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that there were triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of safety devices and whether the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the injuries.

scaffolding accidentLabor Lawsummary judgmentliabilitysafety devicesconstruction siteproximate causeappellate reviewpersonal injuryfall from height
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2011

Olsen v. Kozlowski

The plaintiff, an employee of L & A Builders, Inc., suffered injuries after falling from a residence under construction, initiating a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against the property owners, Shirley F. Kozlowski and Louis F. Kozlowski. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment against Shirley F. Kozlowski but this was challenged on appeal. The appellate court modified the order, denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability in its entirety. This decision stemmed from a triable issue of fact concerning whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the plaintiff's employer, L & A Builders, Inc., which could invoke the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Consequently, the order was affirmed as modified, ultimately denying the plaintiff's motion.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationProperty Owner LiabilityOfficer ImmunityAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightOneida County
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 19,504 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