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

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01255 [158 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2018

Pena v. Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1

Juan Pena, an injured worker, sued Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust Number 1 and Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) under Labor Law § 240 (1) after sustaining injuries from a fall off an unsecured and wobbling ladder. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Pena partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against SGI. SGI appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Pena's deposition testimony sufficiently established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that SGI failed to raise a triable issue of fact, particularly regarding the provision of adequate safety devices or whether Pena was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder accidentUnsecured ladderFall from heightConstruction site accidentAppellate decisionPrima facie caseTriable issue of factProximate cause
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 1996

Vernum v. Zilka

The plaintiff fell from a ladder while removing snow and ice from the roof of a rental building owned by the defendants. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, reasoning that snow removal is not an activity covered by this section. The appellate court examined whether snow removal constitutes "cleaning," "maintenance," or "repair" under the Labor Law, concluding it is a form of "cleaning" and not "domestic" work, thereby falling within the statute's protection. The court also determined that the plaintiff was an "employee" as defined by the Labor Law. Given the undisputed facts that the fall was caused by an unsecured ladder while working at a height, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion, and granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)ladder fallsnow removalcleaning activityemployee statussummary judgmentappellate decisionpremises liabilitybuilding maintenancestatutory interpretation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mueller v. PSEG Power New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Paul Mueller sustained injuries at a construction site owned by the defendant while engaged in disassembling steel slab forms with a crane. The forms, weighing approximately 1,035 pounds, were accidentally snagged by the crane cable after being placed on the ground and unhooked by workers, subsequently falling onto Mueller's leg. Mueller and his wife initiated an action asserting common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claims, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The appellate court determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable as the incident did not involve a hoisting activity, and Labor Law § 241 (6) did not apply because the relevant regulation, 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a), specifically pertains to concrete forms during active concrete work rather than during storage.

Construction AccidentLabor LawElevation HazardHoisting AccidentConcrete FormsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
13
Case No. ADJ10569473
Regular
Sep 12, 2017

EDWIN RAQUEDAN (deceased), IMELDA RAQUEDAN vs. VIOLA, INC.; EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether the presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402 applies to a deceased accountant's fatal car accident claim. The defendant employer contests the finding that this presumption was triggered because no DWC-1 claim form was ever filed by the applicant. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the trial judge's order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board noted that under *Honeywell*, the 90-day presumption period runs only from the filing of a claim form, not from the employer's general knowledge of an injury.

Labor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilityPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial causationMotor vehicle accidentClaim formRebuttable presumptionHoneywell v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion on Decision
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01726 [192 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2021

Palermo v. 7 W. 21 LLC

The plaintiff, Frank Palermo, was injured while assisting a coworker in carrying a large wood form on a construction site. While the plaintiff rested his end of the form on vertical piping, his coworker unexpectedly lifted his side, causing the form to fall and strike the plaintiff's left foot. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, citing factual issues regarding whether the activity involved an elevation-related risk requiring the wood form to be secured under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, a factual question remained as to whether an appropriate safety device could have prevented the accident.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentElevation-Related RiskSafety DeviceFalling ObjectCoworker ActionLiability DisputeAppellate ReviewFactual Issues
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corsaro v. Mt. Calvary Cemetery, Inc.

The plaintiff sustained injuries when a construction form collapsed and fell on him while he was working at ground level. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, an appellate court subsequently determined this was an error, concluding that the incident did not involve an elevation-related risk as defined by Labor Law § 240 (1) because the form was at the same elevation as the work site. The appellate court also affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the primary defendant regarding its third-party complaint against Frank L. Ciminelli Construction Co., the plaintiff's employer, based on evidence that the defendant did not control or supervise the employer's work. Consequently, the appellate order was modified to vacate the partial summary judgment for the plaintiff and to dismiss the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related riskFalling object doctrineSummary judgmentThird-party complaintConstruction accidentEmployer liabilityWorker injuryAppellate reviewStatutory interpretation
References
7
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,472 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