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

Arey v. M. Dunn, Inc.

Plaintiff Gerald Arey, a carpentry subcontractor, was injured when he fell from a roof during construction in a residential subdivision. He and his wife initiated an action against the property owner, M. Dunn, Inc., and contractors, Homeland Development Corporation and Peter Belmonte Builders, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, a decision subsequently appealed by the defendants. Defendants contended that Arey was an employer and therefore not entitled to Labor Law protections, and attempted to assert contributory negligence and the recalcitrant worker defense. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, concluding that the defendants failed to provide mandated safety devices, that contributory negligence is not a valid defense, and that the recalcitrant worker defense was inapplicable due to the absence of available safety devices at the site. The court underscored the nondelegable duty of owners and contractors under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)Fall ProtectionConstruction AccidentPartial Summary JudgmentRecalcitrant Worker DefenseContributory NegligenceNondelegable DutySubcontractor InjuryAppellate AffirmationSafety Devices
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2002

DePalma v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The plaintiff's husband died after falling 35 feet from an I-beam while working on air conditioning equipment installation. He was operating a derrick and fell while untying a tag line. Safety harnesses were available at the site but were not readily accessible. The IAS court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing factual disputes regarding the provision of safety devices and proximate cause. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no evidence that the decedent refused to use available safety equipment and confirming his actions were within the scope of his duties. The court also rejected the recalcitrant worker defense, emphasizing that a worker's mere negligence does not create a factual issue regarding causation if safety devices were not properly provided and constructed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityFall from HeightConstruction AccidentSafety DevicesProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseContributory NegligenceDerrick Operation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haystrand v. County of Ontario

The plaintiff was injured after falling from a scaffold while painting a building owned by the defendant. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging violations of the Labor Law, specifically Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim. On appeal, the defendant contended that the court erred, arguing that the plaintiff's failure to use the scaffold's locking mechanism was dispositive. The appellate court rejected this argument, stating that an owner's statutory duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) requires furnishing, placing, and operating safety devices to give proper protection, and is not met merely by making devices available. The court also determined that the 'recalcitrant worker' doctrine did not apply because the defendant did not provide the safety devices. The plaintiff's own negligence was deemed irrelevant to a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The order was unanimously affirmed with costs.

Labor Law § 240 (1)scaffold accidentfall from heightowner liabilitystatutory dutysummary judgmentrecalcitrant worker doctrinecontributory negligenceappellate reviewconstruction accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox v. Tioga Construction Co.

Plaintiff Theodore Fox, Jr. was severely injured on October 10, 2002, when a pedestrian bridge under construction in Marcy, New York, collapsed, causing him to fall over 30 feet. As an employee of the New York State Department of Transportation, he was performing his employment duties when the accident occurred. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240, arguing that the defendant, Tioga Construction Company, Inc., failed to provide required safety devices like shoring at the elevated work site. The court rejected the defendant's contention that discovery was needed or that the permanent nature of the bridge precluded Labor Law § 240 applicability, emphasizing the nondelegable duty to provide protection against gravity-related hazards. Finding no factual dispute, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, holding the defendant liable under Labor Law § 240 for failing to provide proper protection.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240Scaffold LawAbsolute LiabilityElevated Work SiteBridge CollapseConstruction AccidentWorker InjurySafety DevicesShoring
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2006

Gonzalez v. Rodless Properties, L.P.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed a motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240. The case revolves around the requirement for safety devices under Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximate causation in worker injuries. The injured plaintiff was provided with safety devices, including scaffolds, a ladder, ropes, and a safety harness, but testimony suggested potential misuse (not opening the ladder, not tying a safety line). Defendants argued that proper devices were provided and the worker's conduct might be the sole proximate cause of the injury. The court also noted that the injured plaintiff's employment status as a 'special employee' for defendant American remained an issue of fact.

Labor LawSafety DevicesProximate CauseWorker InjurySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyPersonal InjuryMisconduct
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Singh v. Barrett

Plaintiff, an employee of Jimco Restoration Corporation, was injured on August 8, 1990, while performing restoration work that involved removing a second floor at 102 Charles Street in Manhattan. He fell to the floor below when a supporting joist gave way. The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide proper safety devices. The defendant owner opposed, claiming the plaintiff refused to use available safety equipment, citing an unsworn accident report. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion, finding an issue of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability. The appellate court ruled that the doctrine of refusal to use safety devices was inapplicable as there was no proof that properly constructed, placed, and operated safety devices were provided. The court also affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) applied to the work due to the elevation-related hazards created by floor removal.

Labor Law Section 240 (1)Absolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentFall from HeightWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewDuty to Provide Safety EquipmentRefusal to Use Safety Devices
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meade v. Rock-Mcgraw, Inc.

This case concerns an injured journeyman carpenter who fell from an A-frame ladder while replacing ceiling tiles at a construction site. The worker, referred to as 'plaintiff', contended that the owner and lessees (defendants Rock-McGraw, Inc., McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., and Morgan Stanley & Co., Incorporated) failed to provide proper safety devices as required by Labor Law § 240 (1), or that the ladder was improperly secured due to a slippery floor. The defendants argued that the plaintiff misused an otherwise adequate safety device, and his actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, finding factual disputes. This appellate court affirmed that denial, concluding that questions of fact existed regarding whether a proper safety device was provided and whether the plaintiff's improper use of the ladder was the sole proximate cause of his accident, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Workers' CompensationScaffold LawLabor LawSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentProximate CauseSafety DevicesConstruction SitePersonal InjuryMisuse of Equipment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sardella v. City of Schenectady

This case involves an appeal from a judgment regarding a plaintiff's injuries sustained from a fall off a ladder while painting a municipal firehouse. The plaintiff, working with a partner, contracted with the defendant owner and used an unsecured firehouse ladder. The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and a jury awarded damages. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the defendant breached its nondelegable duty to provide proper safety devices, even if it denied permission to use its ladder. The court also noted that the lack of safety devices was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Ladder FallPainting AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Workplace SafetyDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewNondelegable DutyPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryAffirmation of Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Luna v. Zoological Society of Buffalo, Inc.

The plaintiff, a carpenter, sought damages for injuries sustained while working on a construction project for the defendant. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court determined that the plaintiff successfully established injury from an elevated work surface due to the defendant's failure to provide adequate safety devices. The defendant did not raise a triable issue of fact concerning the plaintiff's own conduct being the sole proximate cause, rejecting the argument that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker, as merely providing safety instructions is insufficient to meet the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Construction AccidentElevated FallWorker SafetyLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerInsufficient Safety DevicePersonal Injury
References
6
Case No. CA 12-01064
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2012

LUNA, JOSEPH v. ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF BUFFALO, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph Luna, a carpenter, commenced this action seeking damages for injuries sustained from a fall during a construction project for the defendant, Zoological Society of Buffalo, Inc. The Supreme Court granted Luna's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The court found that Luna met his burden by showing injury from a fall from an elevated surface due to the defendant's failure to provide sufficient safety devices. The defendant's argument that Luna's own conduct was the sole proximate cause was rejected, as the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) requires more than just providing instructions or making devices available.

Construction AccidentElevated Work SurfaceLabor Law § 240(1)Worker SafetyLiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFall InjuriesNondelegable DutyRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 10,381 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