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. 2014 NYSlipOp 06570 [121 AD3d 661]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2014

Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC v. Al-An Elevator Maintenance Corp.

This case involves a dispute between Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC (plaintiff) and Al-An Elevator Maintenance Corporation (defendant) concerning a 10-year elevator maintenance contract. The defendant ceased services, alleging unsafe premises. The plaintiff subsequently sued for breach of contract and fraud. The Supreme Court partially dismissed the plaintiff's claims, specifically regarding consequential damages for breach of contract and the entire fraud cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the breach of contract claim was adequately pleaded, the limitation on liability for consequential damages was enforceable, and the fraud claim was properly dismissed as it was not collateral to the contract.

Breach of ContractFraudElevator Maintenance AgreementConsequential DamagesMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Condition PrecedentLimitation on LiabilityAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados

This case involves an appeal concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rafael Casados, a temporary employee leased by Staff Force to Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C., died in a work-related accident. His parents, Rogelio and Rafaela Casados, sued Port Elevator for wrongful death. Port Elevator sought summary judgment, arguing Casados was its employee and covered by its workers' compensation policy, thus barring the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Port Elevator's summary judgment and the granting of Casados's partial summary judgment. The court found that Port Elevator failed to conclusively prove its policy covered temporary employees like Casados, thus rendering the exclusive remedy defense inapplicable.

Exclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed ServantSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageEmployer LiabilityTexas Workers' Compensation ActStaff Leasing Services ActPolicy InterpretationWrongful Death
References
19
Case No. 13-08-00150-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2010

Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Rogelio Casados and Rafaela Casados, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Their Son, Rafael Casados

Port Elevator–Brownsville, L.L.C. (Appellant) appealed the denial of its summary judgment motion and the granting of a partial summary judgment to Rogelio and Rafaela Casados (Appellees). The case involved the death of Rafael Casados, a temporary worker hired by Staff Force and assigned to Port Elevator, who died in a grain storage facility. Port Elevator argued that appellees' claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Casados was its employee and it subscribed to workers' compensation insurance. Appellees contended that Casados was not covered under Port Elevator's policy, as it did not include temporary employees. The court, citing Garza v. Exel Logistics, Inc., ruled that Port Elevator failed to prove explicit workers' compensation coverage for Casados, a prerequisite for the exclusive remedy provision. Therefore, the trial court's denial of Port Elevator’s motion and granting of appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment were affirmed.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyTemporary EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawBorrowed ServantInsurance CoverageTexas LawWrongful Death
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carroum v. Dover Elevator Co.

This case involves an appeal by Budgetel Inns, the third-party defendant, against a summary judgment granted to Dover Elevator Company, the third-party plaintiff, based on an indemnity clause. The underlying action arose from an injury sustained by Roger Carroum, a Budgetel employee, who sued Dover for negligence in an elevator incident. Dover subsequently sought indemnification from Budgetel, relying on a contractual indemnity clause. Budgetel argued the clause was void under T.C.A. § 62-6-123, which invalidates indemnity agreements related to construction against a promisee's sole negligence. The appellate court found that material facts were disputed regarding whether the Budgetel Inn was still under construction at the time of the injury, making summary judgment improper. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Indemnity ClauseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationConstruction ContractNegligenceThird-Party ComplaintT.C.A. § 62-6-123Public PolicyVoid ContractBodily Injury
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03901 [161 AD3d 695]
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2018

Giancola v. Yale Club of N.Y. City

Plaintiff Christopher Giancola, an elevator mechanic, sustained injuries when a particle board covering an high-elevation escape hatch on an elevator car, where he was working, collapsed. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The Appellate Division granted Giancola's cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that it was foreseeable the particle board would collapse and that adequate safety devices should have been provided. However, the court affirmed the denial of Giancola's cross motion for common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing triable issues regarding whether the defendant had notice of the hazardous condition.

Elevator AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentForeseeabilitySafety DevicesElevation-Related RisksBuilding MaintenanceWorkplace SafetyNegligenceThird-Party Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLeon v. Otis Elevator Co.

Mrs. Aurelia DeLeon brought a suit for damages against Otis Elevator Company and Nix Professional Building Corporation after sustaining personal injuries in a malfunctioning elevator in the Nix Building. Texas Employers Insurance Association intervened to recover workers' compensation benefits paid to Mrs. DeLeon. The jury found no negligence or defective design by Otis and no failure to use a high degree of care by Nix. The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict. Mrs. DeLeon appealed, raising points of error concerning jury instructions on non-delegable duty, unavoidable accident, circumstantial evidence, and the exclusion of evidence, as well as the factual insufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error.

Elevator accidentPersonal injuryNegligenceDefective designRes ipsa loquiturJury instructionsAppellate reviewWorkers' compensation subrogationStandard of carePremises liability
References
18
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05045 [140 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2016

Privette v. Precision Elevator

Eric Privette, an employee of Sapir Realty Management, was injured in an elevator maintained by Precision Elevator. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted summary judgment to several defendants including the building owner and managing agent. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this ruling, denying summary judgment as to the Sapir Organization while affirming it for other defendants. The court found that Sapir Realty Management and the building owner operated as a single entity for workers' compensation purposes, thus entitling them to protections under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Additionally, a former owner, 260/261 Madison Equities Corp., was not held liable for conditions after conveying the property.

Elevator accidentsummary judgment reversalWorkers' Compensation Law § 11premises liabilitycorporate identityowner liabilityappellate reviewmanaging agent liabilityFirst DepartmentNew York law
References
5
Case No. 05-01158
Regular Panel Decision

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

The Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Benefit Plans sought administrative priority for delinquent contributions from A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc. (ACE), based on various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court denied administrative priority for most claims, including those under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A), 507(a)(1), and 1113(f), reasoning that the contributions were for prepetition work and that section 1113(f) does not create super-priority. However, the motion was partially granted under 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) for Welfare Plan contributions, recognizing them as retiree benefits despite their prepetition nature, but requiring further information on the exact allocation to retirees. Claims for interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees were denied priority, as was ACE's request for costs. This decision underscores the careful interpretation of priority schemes within bankruptcy law.

Bankruptcy LawAdministrative PriorityEmployee BenefitsPension PlansWelfare PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-PossessionRetiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection ActPrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Claims
References
27
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06678 [143 AD3d 759]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2016

Fajardo v. Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp.

Manuel Fajardo sued Mainco Elevator & Electrical Corp., Bronx Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare, LLC, and Underbruckner Realty Co., LLC for personal injuries sustained in an elevator accident. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for all defendants and partially granted Mainco's cross-motion for spoliation of evidence. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Mainco. However, it reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Bronx Center, determining it was Fajardo's special employer and thus immune under Workers' Compensation Law. The court also reversed and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Underbruckner, finding it was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to maintain the premises.

personal injuryelevator accidentspoliation of evidencesummary judgmentcontractual indemnificationbreach of contractworkers' compensationspecial employer doctrineout-of-possession landlordstatutory duty
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 1,095 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