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
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Farrell

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal in a legal malpractice action. Defendant James P. Farrell, Jr., a lawyer, represented Six G’s Contracting Corp. in a personal injury action. Farrell failed to timely notify the State Insurance Fund (SIF) of a third-party action against Six G’s, leading SIF to disclaim coverage. Six G’s assigned its malpractice claim to Joseph Gazza and Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company, the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court denied Farrell’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court’s order, concluding that the complaint sufficiently stated elements of legal malpractice and that the issue of SIF's waiver of disclaimer was a question of fact, not determinable as a matter of law.

Legal MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceInsurance DisclaimerSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAssignment of ClaimWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationAppellate ReviewCausation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1983

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. North River Insurance

Vincent Yeager, an employee of American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. (American), was injured during employment, leading to a lawsuit against a machine manufacturer, who then brought a third-party action against American for indemnification. American was covered by both a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund and a general liability policy from North River Insurance Co. North River disclaimed liability, citing exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and bodily injury to employees. American then initiated a fourth-party action against North River for contribution. The Supreme Court initially denied American's summary judgment motion and granted North River's cross-motion to dismiss, with leave to replead for indemnification. This court reversed, holding that North River's exclusions do not insulate it from American’s claims because the employer's liability to a third-party tort-feasor for an employee's injury arises from equitable apportionment, not directly from workers' compensation law, thus granting American's motion for summary judgment and denying North River's cross-motion.

Insurance coverage disputeGeneral liability policyWorkers' compensation exclusionContribution between tort-feasorsIndemnificationSummary judgmentFourth-party actionDole-Dow doctrineEquitable apportionmentEmployer liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holt Construction Corp. v. Grand Palais, LLC

Holt Construction Corp. initiated an action against Grand Palais, LLC, Grand Palais Development, Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, and Howard Lepow, seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, set aside fraudulent conveyances, and recover damages for diversion of trust assets. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Holt on multiple causes of action. Defendants appealed, and Holt cross-appealed from portions of the judgment entered January 19, 2012. The appellate court dismissed certain appeals, modified the judgment by dismissing the seventh cause of action and portions of the twelfth and thirteenth causes of action related to Lien Law § 13 (5), and reversed the dismissal of claims against Howard Lepow for violations of Lien Law §§ 72 and 77, awarding judgment in favor of Holt against Lepow for $935,342.55. As modified, the judgment was affirmed with costs to the plaintiff.

Mechanic's LienFraudulent ConveyanceDiversion of Trust AssetsDebtor and Creditor LawLien LawAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationNonjury TrialCorporate Officer LiabilityConstruction Contract
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwang Ho Kim v. D & W Shin Realty Corp.

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning a personal injury action brought by Kwang Ho Kam and his wife against D & W Shin Realty Corp. and AGP Seafood Corp. (ACP). Kwang Ho Kam sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while performing siding work. The Supreme Court's order dated January 25, 2006, was challenged on multiple grounds, including summary judgment on cross-claims for common-law indemnification and breach of an insurance procurement provision, and dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims. The appellate court modified the original order by granting D & W's motion for summary judgment on the insurance procurement breach claim, reversing the dismissal of D & W's indemnification and insurance breach cross-claims, and denying ACP's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding ACP acted as an "owner." However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 claims against ACP due to lack of supervisory control and upheld the untimeliness of D & W's motion to dismiss Labor Law claims. The order was affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCross-ClaimsIndemnificationInsurance ProcurementBreach of ContractUnsecured LadderWorker Safety
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2014

Fronce v. Port Byron Telephone Co.

The plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from an aerial bucket while removing cables from a utility pole on the defendants' property, leading to a Labor Law action. The Supreme Court denied both the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. On appeal, the court found the defendants to be owners under the Labor Law due to an easement granted to the plaintiff's employer's predecessor. The court also determined that the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff established the causal link between his injuries and the violation of the defendants' nondelegable duty, and that his conduct was not the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the order was modified to grant the plaintiff's cross-motion and affirmed as modified.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Personal InjuryAerial Bucket FallUtility PoleEasementOwner LiabilitySummary JudgmentCross-MotionProximate CauseComparative Negligence
References
16
Case No. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

Rigby v. Brisky Family Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff appealed and defendants cross-appealed an order concerning a personal injury action arising from a workplace accident. Plaintiff sustained a groin strain while working on an elevated surface, guiding a truss lifted by a forklift, accidentally trapping his finger. The Supreme Court initially denied both plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court granted parts of the cross-motion, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) causes of action, concluding that plaintiff's injury did not result from a fall or the direct application of gravity, and a safety device would not have prevented it. The Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was sustained.

Personal InjuryLabor LawCommon-law NegligenceElevated WorkForklift AccidentSummary JudgmentCross-MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace InjuryGravity
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2012

Godoy v. Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund Co.

The plaintiff, a demolition worker, was injured when a floor collapsed beneath her during a demolition project. She initiated an action, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), and moved for summary judgment on liability. The third-party defendant cross-moved to dismiss this cause of action. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion but denied the third-party defendant's cross-motion. On appeal, the order was modified; the plaintiff's summary judgment motion was denied due to a triable issue of fact concerning whether her actions were the sole proximate cause of her injuries, while the denial of the third-party defendant's cross-motion was affirmed due to conflicting inferences precluding summary judgment.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Demolition AccidentFloor CollapseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseElevation-Related RiskWorker SafetyTriable Issue of Fact
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 12,057 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