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

Kendle v. August Bohl Contracting Co.

Samuel Kendle, an employee of subcontractor Clifford Quay & Sons, Inc., was injured while operating a motorized wheelbarrow at a construction site in Saratoga County. He fell when plywood covering a trench, allegedly dug by defendant August Bohl Contracting Company, Inc. (Bohl), buckled. Kendle and his wife sued the property owners, construction manager, and Bohl, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims but denied Bohl's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and negligence causes of action. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Bohl did not exercise supervisory control over Kendle's work, a necessary element for Labor Law § 200 liability. The court also dismissed the negligence claim, noting that the trench was readily observable to the experienced plaintiff.

Construction AccidentMotorized Wheelbarrow InjuryWorksite HazardSubcontractor NegligenceLabor Law LiabilityLack of Supervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealAppellate ReversalPlywood Failure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1992

Biszick v. Ninnie Construction Corp.

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Duchess County, which granted summary judgment motions by several defendants, including Halmar Construction Corp. and International Business Machines Corporation. These motions dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, specifically causes of action based on Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly dismissed as it relied on general safety standards, which are insufficient under this section. The Labor Law § 200 claim was also correctly dismissed because the alleged defect originated from a subcontractor's methods, and the defendants lacked supervisory control over the operation. The court found no merit in the plaintiffs' remaining arguments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Construction SafetyWorkplace SafetyNondelegable DutySubcontractor LiabilityAppellate AffirmationNew York Supreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1998

Higgins v. 1790 Broadway Associates

Plaintiff, an employee of O & P Management Corp., suffered injuries while attempting to repair a freight elevator using a defective ladder. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing claims against all defendants: Central Elevator, 1790 Broadway Associates, John Phufas, and O & P Management. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Central Elevator and the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against 1790 Broadway Associates and Phufas. However, it denied the cross-motion by 1790 Broadway Associates and John Phufas to dismiss claims of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, reinstating these claims. The court reasoned that it was foreseeable a worker might use the defective ladder, which constituted a dangerous condition, and that the owners failed to demonstrate lack of notice regarding this unsafe condition.

Elevator AccidentDefective LadderCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentActual NoticeConstructive NoticeWorkplace Safety
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2009

Delaney v. City of New York

Plaintiff, an ironworker, sustained injuries while working on a bridge owned by defendant City when he was struck by an employer-operated pickup truck. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and for common-law negligence. This decision was unanimously affirmed, finding that the owner could not be held liable as the injuries resulted from the contractor's methods, and the owner lacked supervisory control. The court also deemed the cited Industrial Code provisions inapplicable and rejected arguments based on inherently dangerous conditions or OSH Act violations.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyBridge Construction
References
5
Case No. ADJ8938458
Regular
Jun 16, 2014

JUAN SOLANO RAMIREZ vs. ELAINE BELL CATERING, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a Petition for Reconsideration filed by former attorney Kenneth Martinson concerning a dismissed claim. Martinson argued the claim was dismissed before he could pursue his lien for fees. However, Martinson subsequently withdrew his Petition for Reconsideration and also requested the dismissal of his lien. Consequently, the Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as withdrawn and dismissed Martinson's lien by operation of law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien DismissalLabor Code Section 5710Appeals Board Rule 10770(g)Appeals Board Rule 10770(h)Dismissal of ClaimLien ClaimantWithdrawal of PetitionAttorney Fees
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stennett v. Moveway Transfer & Storage, Inc.

This appellate decision addresses a plaintiff's appeal regarding the dismissal of several labor law claims. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of a statutory cause of action under Labor Law § 231, concluding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which is a prerequisite for such a claim. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the common-law breach of contract claim, asserting that employees can act as third-party beneficiaries to recover unpaid prevailing wages. Additionally, the court reinstated the claim for unpaid overtime wages under the Minimum Wage Act (Labor Law article 19), clarifying that this cause of action is independent of Labor Law § 231 and does not require prior administrative determination. The decision thus outlines the distinct requirements and remedies available for different types of wage claims under New York Labor Law.

CPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissPrevailing WageLabor Law § 231Private Right of ActionAdministrative ExhaustionBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryMinimum Wage ActLabor Law Article 19
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beltran v. City of New York

This case involves a third-party defendant, Mulvihill Electrical Contracting Corp., moving to dismiss a third-party action filed by New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) based on the exclusivity provision of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The underlying case stems from a plaintiff's injury sustained while employed by Mulvihill, who was under contract with NYCTA. NYCTA sought indemnification or contribution from Mulvihill under common law and contract, and for breach of contract due to Mulvihill's failure to procure insurance. The court analyzed the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 amendment regarding 'grave injury' as a bar to common-law claims. It ruled that while common-law indemnification/contribution claims are barred without grave injury, contractual indemnification claims are permissible. The court also allowed the breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance. Consequently, Mulvihill’s motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims was granted, but the motion to dismiss contractual claims and the breach of contract claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211Exclusivity ProvisionIndemnificationContributionBreach of ContractGrave InjuryThird-Party ClaimMotion to DismissContractual Obligation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grasso v. Schenectady County Public Library

The plaintiff, an employee of Schenectady County Public Library, commenced an action against the library and two of its employees for sexual harassment, prima facie tort, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, following her termination after a medical leave. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing the plaintiff's failure to join the County and to serve a notice of claim as required by County Law § 52 and General Municipal Law § 50-i. The Supreme Court denied the motion, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division held that while General Municipal Law § 50-i does not apply to discrimination claims, County Law § 52, incorporating General Municipal Law § 50-e, does apply to claims against the county-operated library, requiring a notice of claim. Due to the absence of a notice of claim, the claims against the Schenectady County Public Library were dismissed. However, the claims against the individual employees were not dismissed, as the defendants failed to prove the County's duty to indemnify them or that the County was a necessary party.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment TerminationMotion to DismissNotice of ClaimCounty LawGeneral Municipal LawPublic Officers LawSchenectady CountyAppellate DivisionPrima Facie Tort
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Noah v. IBC Acquisition Corp.

Plaintiff, injured while cleaning a waterslide at an amusement park, initiated an action claiming violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), alongside common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, as these statutes were deemed inapplicable to routine maintenance outside of a construction or renovation context. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding the ownership, supervision, and operation of the amusement park at the time of the injury. The court noted that no stipulation to dismiss against various defendants was found in the record, despite earlier indications from plaintiff's counsel.

Amusement ParkSlip and FallRoutine MaintenanceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtPremises Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

Turchioe v. AT&T Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff, a laborer, sustained a back injury while manually transporting a heavy ductlift up a stairway with a co-worker, alleging the co-worker crouched and shifted the full weight onto him. The initial order granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified this, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, including all cross claims and third-party actions. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed as the lifting activity was not a 'special hazard'. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked evidence of lighting violations or causation by debris. The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed due to the absence of supervisory control by the owner or general contractor over the work.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentThird-Party ClaimsCommon Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityWorker Safety
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 22,200 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