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

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
Sep 07, 2006

Ritzer v. 6 East 43rd Street Corp.

In this Supreme Court Order from New York County, an action by a construction worker against a construction site owner and general contractor for personal injuries was reviewed. The plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the site owner was denied due to an insufficient affidavit. Concurrently, the defendants' cross motion to compel the plaintiff's acceptance of their amended answer was granted. The court noted that most of the delay in answering was attributed to the site owner's insurer and found no resulting prejudice to the plaintiff. The decision to deny the default judgment and grant the cross motion was unanimously affirmed by a panel of judges.

construction accidentpersonal injuryscaffold falldefault judgment motionamended answerindemnification clauseinsurer responsibilityappellate reviewcivil procedurecourt discretion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1997

Ortega v. Catamount Construction Corp.

A laborer sued a site owner, construction manager, and an asbestos removal prime contractor for personal injuries sustained at a renovation site. The Supreme Court found the defendants liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), apportioning fault among them and a defaulting asbestos removal subcontractor, who was the plaintiff's employer. The site owner was awarded common-law indemnity against the construction manager and asbestos contractors, and contractual indemnity against the prime contractor. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by vacating the apportionment of fault due to being against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial for this issue, while affirming the remainder of the judgment. The court also affirmed the common-law indemnity for the owner against the construction manager and addressed the construction manager's unpreserved liability argument.

Personal InjuryRenovation SiteLabor Law 240(1)Apportionment of FaultIndemnityConstruction SafetyScaffoldRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSupreme CourtAppellate Division
References
5
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

Mendez v. HRH Construction Co.

The plaintiff, Robert Mendez, an electrician, sustained injuries after falling 20 feet through an unguarded hole on the 14th floor of a construction site. He moved for partial summary judgment against HRH Construction Company, Inc. under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding that the 14th floor of a construction site is an elevated work site and that an unguarded hole presents the same hazard as a roof-top hole. However, the court denied summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6) due to existing material issues of fact regarding reasonable protection and comparative negligence. All defendant cross-motions were denied.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Summary JudgmentElevated Work SiteUnguarded OpeningAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseComparative Negligence
References
9
Case No. W2012-01309-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2013

Andrea Blackwell and Frederick Blackwell, Co-Conservators for the Estate and Person of Robert Blackwell v. Comanche Construction, Inc. and Comanche Construction of Georgia, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal arose from a lawsuit filed by Andrea and Frederick Blackwell, co-conservators for Robert Blackwell, against Comanche Construction, Inc. after Robert sustained debilitating injuries on a job site. Comanche, a subcontractor, argued it was a statutory employer of Blackwell and thus immune from tort liability under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court denied Comanche's summary judgment motion, finding it was not a statutory employer. The Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal, concluding that the threshold issue of whether Ford Construction Company, Blackwell's direct employer, was a subcontractor of Comanche was not addressed by the lower court and was outside the scope of the certified appellate question, thus precluding a decision on the statutory employer issue. The case was therefore remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Workers' Compensation LawStatutory EmployerInterlocutory Appeal DismissalRemand OrderSubcontractor DefinitionTort ImmunityCrane Accident LitigationPersonal Injury ClaimsSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
27
Case No. M2004-00322-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2005

C.R. Batts Const. v. 101 Construction Co.

This appeal arises from a breach of contract action filed by C.R. Batts Construction, LLC against 101 Construction Company for unpaid services related to a subcontract for site preparation. The initial dispute stemmed from disagreements over the quantity of rock excavated and the subsequent payments. The trial court found in favor of C.R. Batts, awarding damages of $24,260.11 along with pre-judgment interest. The defendants, 101 Construction and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, appealed this decision, challenging the evidentiary support for the award and the discretion used in granting pre-judgment interest. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding its implicit factual findings and its discretion in awarding interest, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against these findings.

Breach of ContractSubcontract AgreementSite PreparationExcavation DisputePre-judgment InterestAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityTrial Court DiscretionContract Termination
References
24
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
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

405 Bedford Avenue Development Corp. v. New Metro Construction, Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal in a declaratory judgment action where 405 Bedford Avenue Corp. sought indemnification from New Metro Construction, Ltd., and Russo Construction, LLC, for an underlying personal injury action brought by Santos Hernandez, an employee of Russo. Hernandez was injured at a construction site owned by 405 Bedford, leading to a Labor Law claim. The Supreme Court denied New Metro and Russo's motion for summary judgment, which argued they had no contractual obligation to indemnify. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to New Metro and Russo. The reversal was based on the absence of a written indemnification agreement, a requirement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and the prior finding that Roth & Sons (New Metro's predecessor) was not liable in the underlying action. The case was remitted for a judgment declaring that New Metro and Russo are not obligated to indemnify 405 Bedford.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryWritten ContractConstruction AccidentLabor LawAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,047 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