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

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. v. Ernesto Pineda

This appeal concerns a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Border Demolition & Environmental, Inc. against attorney Ernesto Pineda. Border Demolition alleged negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, claiming Pineda failed to defend them in an underlying wrongful discharge suit despite an alleged implied attorney-client relationship. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Pineda on the breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims, deeming them impermissible fracturing of the legal malpractice claim. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the legal malpractice claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the implied attorney-client relationship and Pineda's duty of care. The case has been remanded for further proceedings on the legal malpractice claim.

Legal MalpracticeAttorney DutyImplied ContractAttorney-Client RelationshipSummary Judgment AppealProfessional NegligenceBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractTexas Court of AppealsEl Paso District
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Mayorga v. 75 Plaza LLC

Plaintiff, a demolition worker, was injured when a 200-pound fire damper he was removing fell on him after a coworker's rope failed to secure it. He sought summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the rope an inadequate safety device for an elevation-related hazard. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, deeming the relied-upon Industrial Code provisions inapplicable to hazards arising directly from demolition work. The argument that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause was rejected due to lack of evidence.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR § 23-3.3Summary JudgmentDemolition AccidentElevation HazardInadequate Safety DeviceProximate CauseAppellate DivisionConstruction Site Injury
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05600 [198 AD3d 826]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2021

Rivas-Pichardo v. 292 Fifth Ave. Holdings, LLC

Cesar A. Rivas-Pichardo, a laborer, was injured during a demolition project when bricks ricocheted from a debris chute. He commenced an action against the property owner, 292 Fifth Avenue Holdings, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241-a, and 241 (6). The owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Pinnacle Demolition & Environmental Services Corp. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted parts of the defendant's and third-party defendant's motions to dismiss certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, finding that Labor Law § 240 (1) was implicated by the elevation-related risk, and accordingly granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability for that claim while denying Pinnacle's motions to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and certain provisions of 241 (6).

Personal InjuryDemolition ProjectLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Elevation-Related RiskDebris Chute AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyIndustrial Code Violations
References
13
Case No. 242 AD3d 1455
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2025

Matter of Jover v. Alba Demolition

Carlos Jover, the claimant, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which ruled he was not entitled to permanent partial disability benefits. The Board affirmed a finding that Jover failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market. Jover, who sustained work-related injuries in 2015 and underwent spinal fusion surgery in 2019, had been classified with a 75% loss of wage-earning capacity. His job search efforts were deemed insufficient because many applied positions required English proficiency or specialized qualifications he lacked. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the determination that Jover had not diligently sought employment within his medical restrictions.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentWage-Earning CapacityJob Search EffortsMedical RestrictionsEnglish Proficiency BarrierVocational Data FormSpinal Fusion SurgeryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review Standard
References
13
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03276 [194 AD3d 607]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2021

Alberto v. DiSano Demolition Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order concerning summary judgment motions related to Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence claims arising from a construction accident. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order. It dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against all defendants, granted Niko's Construction's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and partially granted the Sota defendants' motion, while otherwise affirming. The court found issues of fact remaining regarding DiSano, Nick Sota, and Niko's Construction's roles as general contractors or in exercising supervisory control over the work, and Manuela Sota's liability under a dangerous condition theory. Claims against Anna Maria Oppedisano were dismissed entirely.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionConstruction SafetyGeneral Contractor LiabilitySupervisory ControlIndustrial CodeHomeowner ExemptionDangerous ConditionPersonal Injury
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05955 [174 AD3d 850]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Davies v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Gerald Davies, was injured while pushing a cart of concrete over a plywood sheet that covered a hole at a construction site. He initiated an action against the premises operator, Simon Property Group, Inc., the general contractor, E.W. Howell Co., LLC, and the sidewalk removal company, Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). E.W. Howell Co., LLC also filed a third-party action against Allstate Interior Demolition Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's initial order, which partially granted and denied various summary judgment motions, was subject to appeals and cross-appeals. The Appellate Division ultimately reversed the order in part, granting Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and denying Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion concerning Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationElevation DifferentialScaffold LawIndustrial CodeSafe Work Environment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Toro v. Plaza Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, a truck driver for Rite-Way Internal Removal, Inc., suffered face and eye injuries while compacting construction debris at a renovation site, which subsequently struck him. He filed a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6). The court determined that the plaintiff was not a protected worker under this statute because his duties, limited to driving a garbage truck and picking up debris, did not constitute 'construction, excavation or demolition' work. Despite a contract for demolition between general contractor Plaza Construction Corp. and Rite-Way, the plaintiff was not involved in demolition activities. Consequently, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed, as the plaintiff's work was considered a separate activity not covered by the statute's protective scope.

Labor Law § 241(6)Construction Site AccidentTruck Driver InjuryWorker ProtectionScope of EmploymentDebris RemovalDemolition WorkPlaintiff Not ProtectedThird-Party DefendantGeneral Contractor Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meehan v. Mobil Oil Corp.

Plaintiff Donald B. Meehan, an employee, was injured after falling from a stepladder while attempting to detach a tire rack from a Mobil gas station undergoing demolition. The demolition contract did not explicitly require the removal of this tire rack. The Supreme Court initially found that Meehan was not 'employed' under Labor Law § 240 (1) for the purpose of this specific task. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, affirming the Supreme Court's determination regarding Labor Law § 240 (1), and granting summary judgment to defendant Bennett Construction on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, concluding Meehan was not performing work incidental or necessary to the scheduled demolition.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary Judgment MotionDemolition Site SafetyEmployee StatusContractor LiabilityWorkplace AccidentStatutory DutyFall from HeightConstruction Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2003

Bornschein v. Shuman

Plaintiff Edward Bornschein, an employee of a demolition subcontractor, sustained personal injuries when he was struck in the head by a falling horizontal steel beam at a demolition site. The property was owned by defendant Bernard Shuman and the demolition was contracted by defendant J.F.S.E Building Corp. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing some of the plaintiff's Labor Law claims but denied others. On appeal, the order was modified by denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under that section. The appellate court also dismissed defendant Bernard Shuman's cross-appeal as abandoned and affirmed other aspects of the Supreme Court's order.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectsContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 175 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