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
May 05, 2022

Wood v. Baker Bros. Excavating

Clifford Wood, a concrete laborer, sustained injuries after falling approximately three feet from a bridge footing at a work site. He initiated a lawsuit against Baker Brothers Excavating (KER), the general contractor, and Brinnier and Larios, P.C., an engineering firm, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Wood moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Supreme Court denied his motion, determining that while Wood met his initial burden, KER had raised triable issues of fact concerning the availability and usage of safety equipment and Wood's specific task at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against KER.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor LawSummary judgmentTriable issues of factWorksite safetyAppellate DivisionGeneral contractorEngineering firmPlaintiff's motion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Telephone Employees Organization, Local 1100, Communications Workers of America v. Woods

This case concerns a plaintiff union, Telephone Employees Organization, Local 1100, Communications Workers of America, attempting to convert a disciplinary financial sanction of $4,939.20 into a judgment against defendant John Woods. The sanction was imposed for Woods crossing a picket line during a strike, violating the union's constitution. Woods defended by claiming he was not a member of the union at the time. The court first determined it had jurisdiction over the nonmembership defense, rejecting the union's preemption argument. Subsequently, the court found that the plaintiff union failed to demonstrate Woods was formally admitted to membership in Local 1100 as required by its constitution and bylaws, lacking proof of an application or initiation fee payment. Consequently, as a nonmember, Woods was not bound by the union's rules prohibiting picket line crossing, rendering the fine unenforceable. The court dismissed the union's complaint and the defendant's counterclaim.

Union Disciplinary ActionPicket Line ViolationUnion Membership DisputeNLRA PreemptionState Court JurisdictionUnion ConstitutionContract EnforcementLabor LawUnion FinesResignation from Union
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. State University of New York

Norman Woods, an employee of SUNY and a member of a bargaining unit, was placed on probation in 2013 following an arbitration and subsequently terminated in 2014 due to a negative performance evaluation. Woods and his union sought to compel arbitration for the 2014 termination or to annul the termination. The Supreme Court initially erred by converting the proceeding to an application to confirm the 2013 arbitration award and remitting the matter for clarification, as the arbitrator's authority was limited to the issues presented at that time. The court also found that petitioners failed to provide sufficient proof of bad faith or improper motivation for Woods' termination, which was justified by poor work performance. The judgment is reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Arbitration DisputePublic Employee TerminationProbationary EmploymentBad Faith TerminationPerformance EvaluationCollective BargainingJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Court DecisionRemittal
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00635
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2019

Vicuna v. Vista Woods, LLC

Cristian Vicuna, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while engaged in roofing work for Vista Woods, LLC. He initiated a lawsuit against Vista Woods, LLC, Ruby Construction Services, LLC, and Builders Choice of New York, Inc., asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), alongside common-law negligence claims. The Supreme Court, Orange County, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting his motion for summary judgment on the liability issue under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld this decision, concluding that the plaintiff presented sufficient prima facie evidence through his deposition testimony that the ladder shifted unexpectedly, and the defendants failed to present a valid factual dispute.

Personal InjuryLadder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNondelegable DutyProximate CauseSafety DevicesRoofing Work
References
13
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. ADJ10454611
Regular
Jun 14, 2018

MARK ELLIOTT vs. CUSTOM WOOD FINISHING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Mark Elliott's Petition for Reconsideration in case ADJ10454611. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in its decision. No specific details of the original claim or the WCJ's report are provided in this excerpt. Therefore, the basis for the denial remains unspecified.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ reportAdoptedIncorporatedMark ElliottCustom Wood FinishingState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. M.V. Woods Construction Co.

In this dissenting opinion, Judges Scudder and Kehoe argue that the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant M.V. Woods Construction Co., Inc.'s cross motion to set aside a jury verdict. The plaintiff, Charles C. Smith, was injured while lifting cement blocks onto an eight-foot-high scaffolding, and the jury found a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (f). The dissenting judges contend that the Industrial Code provision, concerning safe vertical passage, is inapplicable because the plaintiff's injury was not related to accessing working levels but to manual material handling. They conclude that any alleged violation was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's back injury, and the complaint against the defendant should have been dismissed.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(f)Scaffolding SafetyProximate CauseJury VerdictDissenting OpinionMaterial HandlingSafe Means of AccessAppellate Review
References
10
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
Showing 1-10 of 406 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