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. 2014 NY Slip Op 05313 [119 AD3d 758]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Perla v. Daytree Custom Builders, Inc.

Milton Perla and his wife initiated an action for personal injuries against Daytree Custom Builders, Inc. after Mr. Perla fell from a roof during employment and received Workers' Compensation benefits. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and sought discovery sanctions or to strike the defendant's Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant was an alter ego of Mr. Perla's employer, which could limit remedies to Workers' Compensation. Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate willful discovery non-compliance and lacked a good faith affirmation for the discovery dispute. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ProcedureRooftop FallEmployer LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nichols v. BDS Landscape Design

Deborah Nichols, injured in a slip and fall in 2005, sought to enforce an oral settlement for a negligence claim against BDS Landscape Design, William Dobson, III, and National Grange Mutual Insurance. Despite reaching an agreement contingent on a workers' compensation lien waiver, National Grange later disputed the settlement and claimed the action was time-barred after Nichols received the necessary consent. Nichols initiated a special proceeding to compel payment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's order, converting the special proceeding into an action, and held that Nichols failed to establish the existence and terms of the settlement agreement as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallNegligenceSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsSpecial ProceedingConversion of ActionWorkers' Compensation LienInsurance Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Arena v. Delux Transportation Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Joseph Arena sued Delux Transportation Services, Inc. and related entities, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York State Labor Law (NYLL), New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), and wrongful conversion. Arena argued he was an employee entitled to labor law protections, while defendants asserted he was an independent contractor. The Court applied the "economic reality test" under both FLSA and New York law, considering factors like control over work, opportunity for profit/loss, skill, permanence of relationship, and integral nature of the work. The Court found that Arena drove at his convenience, set his own schedule, retained all fares, and was not significantly controlled or supervised by the defendants. Consequently, the Court determined there was no employer-employee relationship under either FLSA or New York law, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorEconomic Reality TestTaxicab DriverWage ClaimsOvertime PayMinimum Wage
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Enriquez v. Home Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc.

The claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an injury from falling off a ladder while working for Home Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined an employer-employee relationship existed and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings and found Home Lawn Care had violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) due to an untimely notice of controversy. Home Lawn Care appealed. The appellate court agreed that the Board erred in finding a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) but upheld the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship and that the injury arose from employment, thus modifying and affirming the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryNotice of ControversySubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewLadder FallGutter Cleaning
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tillman v. Triou's Custom Homes, Inc.

Charles Tillman, a truck driver for Phelps Cement Products, Inc., sustained a fractured leg after falling from his flatbed truck while unloading cement blocks at a construction site. He sued Triou’s Custom Homes, Inc. (general contractor) and Zurich Masonry, Inc. (subcontractor) alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted Tillman partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, but this court reversed that decision, concluding that a flatbed truck is not an elevated work surface for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Triou, finding specific Industrial Code violations applicable, but upheld the dismissal of the § 241 (6) claim against Zurich as they were not Triou's agent.

Construction accidentFall from heightFlatbed truckLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial CodeGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor liabilityVicarious liabilityCommon-law indemnification
References
15
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08502
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Eddy v. John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant, John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc., and denying the plaintiff, Mark Eddy's, cross-motion for summary judgment. The case involved a construction worker who was injured after falling from a moving pickup truck while sitting on an unsecured cast iron grate. The court ruled that the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the fall from the truck's tailgate was considered a usual and ordinary danger of a construction site, not an extraordinary elevation hazard. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's decision to ride in a hazardous position on the tailgate, despite being warned, constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby precluding any liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6).

Labor LawWorkplace AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseElevation HazardPickup TruckUnsecured LoadAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
42
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06165
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2023

Zapototsky v. Ascape Landscape & Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a personal injury action brought by Orest Zapototsky after he slipped on ice at an outlet mall. The plaintiff sued Ascape Landscape & Construction Corp., responsible for snow removal, and the property owners, Simon Property Group, L.P., and Premium Outlet Partners, L.P. The property owners, referred to as the Simon defendants, sought conditional summary judgment on cross-claims against Ascape for contractual indemnification, breach of duty to defend, and attorney's fees, which the Supreme Court denied. Ascape's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing these cross-claims was granted by the lower court. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the Simon defendants' motion, finding triable issues of fact regarding Ascape's contractual performance. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying Ascape's cross-motion, concluding that Ascape also failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the accident was unrelated to its services. Thus, the appeals court ruled that triable issues of fact remain concerning Ascape's obligations to indemnify and defend the Simon defendants.

Personal InjurySlip and FallIce Removal ContractContractual IndemnificationBreach of Contractual Duty to DefendAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewSnow Removal
References
12
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02968
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Kosinski v. Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Zbigniew Kosinski and his wife, commenced an action against defendants Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc. (BMCC), Concordia General Contracting, Inc. (Concordia), and Lynn DeGregorio, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Kosinski after falling from a ladder during carpentry work. The lawsuit alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified this order, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) due to triable issues of fact concerning Kosinski's potential misuse of the ladder. Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against homeowner Lynn DeGregorio, invoking the homeowner's exemption as she did not direct or control the work. However, the denial of summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim against Concordia was affirmed, as Concordia failed to prove lack of supervisory authority.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorStatutory Duty
References
12
Case No. ADJ1083447 (LAO 0872246)
Regular
Mar 04, 2010

FRANKLIN GONZALEZ vs. ARGENT CUSTOM FURNITURE, DCS, UNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUND, CUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLC, CHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant, Franklin Gonzalez, and defendants including Argent Custom Furniture and the Uninsured Employer's Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order denying reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in denying the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDARGENT CUSTOM FURNITUREUNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUNDCUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLCCHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANYADJ1083447LAO 0872246DENYING RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stachura v. 615-51 Street Realty Corp.

The defendants third-party plaintiffs, 615-51 Street Realty Corp. and New Deal Realty Corp., appealed an order denying summary judgment to New Deal Realty Corp. on a contractual indemnification claim and granting dismissal of that claim to the third-party defendant, J&L Landscaping Inc. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of 615-51 Street Realty Corp. The court reversed the order pertaining to New Deal Realty Corp., finding that the 'hold harmless' agreement between New Deal and J&L was a valid and binding contract supported by consideration and not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. New Deal Realty Corp. successfully demonstrated its freedom from negligence, and J&L Landscaping Inc. failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded in favor of New Deal Realty Corp. on its contractual indemnification claim against J&L Landscaping Inc.

Construction AccidentContractual IndemnificationHold Harmless AgreementSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury DamagesNegligence
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 349 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