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

Jones v. 414 Equities LLC

A demolition worker, Jones, fell 10-12 feet when a permanent floor collapsed during renovation. He sued the owner, 414 Equities LLC, and general contractor, Artimus Construction, Inc., under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and common-law negligence. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, arguing an elevation-related risk and lack of safety devices, and the floor's decay. The Supreme Court denied this motion, ruling that a permanent floor collapse only posed an elevation-related risk if foreseeable, and plaintiff's evidence was insufficient. The Supreme Court also denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the general contractor and granted the contractor's cross-motion for leave to serve a late answer. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, concluding that foreseeability is required for Labor Law § 240(1) liability in permanent floor collapse cases, and finding the general contractor's brief delay in answering excusable.

Demolition workLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related riskPermanent floor collapseSummary judgmentForeseeabilityAppellate reviewWorker safetyConstruction site accidentGeneral contractor liability
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2000

Cruceta v. Funnel Equities, Inc.

Juanita Cruceta, an employee of Waldbaum, Inc., was injured after tripping at work and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. Along with her husband, Qulvio Cruceta, she initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Funnel Equities, Inc., the building owner and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waldbaum. Funnel moved for summary judgment, asserting the workers' compensation exclusivity provision under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), arguing it was an 'alter ego' of Waldbaum. The Supreme Court denied Funnel's motion. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing unresolved factual issues regarding Funnel's 'alter ego' status with Waldbaum and its parent company, A&P, and whether Funnel possessed exclusive knowledge of these pertinent facts.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityFactual IssuesAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityBuilding Owner
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacino v. Equity Management Group

In this case, Emanuel Palacino, a porter for Equity Management Group, was injured in an elevator accident. Equity Management Group moved to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing Palacino was a special employee, and sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Equity's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Equity leave to amend its answer. However, the court found triable issues of fact concerning Palacino's special employee status and Equity's indemnification claim against Century Elevator Maintenance Corp., precluding summary judgment on those issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employee StatusLeave to Amend AnswerSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewElevator AccidentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reeves v. Continental Equities Corp. of America

Alfred P. Reeves sued Continental Equities Corporation of America and Continental Corporation alleging wrongful discharge under federal securities laws and implied contract, severance benefits under New York law and ERISA, and unreimbursed business expenses. After initial federal claims were dismissed and some remanded by the Second Circuit, Reeves filed an Amended Complaint, adding defamation and demands for a jury trial and punitive damages. Continental moved to dismiss certain state law claims and strike the jury demand and punitive damages requests. The court dismissed the federal securities law claim (again) and the defamation claim for lack of specificity and potential untimeliness. It allowed the ERISA severance benefits claim and the remaining state law claims (wrongful discharge, unreimbursed business expenses) to proceed under pendent jurisdiction. The jury trial demand for ERISA benefits was allowed to stand for further discovery, and punitive damages for ERISA were deferred, but punitive damages for the breach of contract claim were stricken under New York law.

wrongful dischargeERISAseverance benefitsimplied contractdefamationpunitive damagesjury trialfederal securities lawspendent jurisdictionsummary judgment
References
27
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
Nov 29, 1994

City of New York v. 1820-1838 Amsterdam Equities, Inc. (In re 1820-1838 Amsterdam Equities, Inc.)

The City of New York, a creditor-appellant, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Bankruptcy Court had denied the City's motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 petition of 1820-1838 Amsterdam Equities, a debtor in default on over $400,000 in city taxes. District Judge Sweet, presiding over the motion for leave to appeal, found that the City failed to meet the standards for interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court determined there was no controlling question of law with a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation. Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was denied, upholding the Bankruptcy Court's fact-specific decision.

BankruptcyInterlocutory AppealMotion to DismissChapter 11CreditorDebtorReal Estate TaxesMortgageJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 653709/2013
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2016

Platinum Equity Advisors, LLC v. SDI, Inc.

This case involves a dispute arising from an April 28, 2011 transaction where Plaintiffs (Sellers) sold shares in Project Eagle to Defendant SDI, Inc. (Purchaser). SDI claims Sellers breached representations and warranties in the Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA), while Sellers contend SDI breached the Escrow Agreement by submitting an invalid claim notice and retaining escrowed funds. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs also sought dismissal on spoliation grounds. The court partially granted and partially denied Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion, dismissing SDI's claims regarding Taxes and temporary workers, but denying dismissal for Financial Statements and Suppliers/Customers. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the Sellers' Representative's claim for breach of the Escrow Agreement. Finally, Plaintiffs' motion for spoliation sanctions was denied due to a lack of demonstrated control over non-party entities.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentEscrow AgreementSpoliation of EvidenceStock Purchase AgreementCorporate AcquisitionIndemnification ClaimDue DiligenceFinancial StatementsSuppliers and Customers
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 1998

Onorino v. Halmar Equities, Inc.

This case involves an appeal arising from a personal injury action. The defendant third-party plaintiff, Halmar Equities, Inc., appealed the denial of its motion for conditional summary judgment on common-law indemnification. The plaintiff cross-appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the third-party defendant, Onorino Bros., cross-appealed the denial of its motion to vacate the note of issue. The appellate court modified the original order by granting Halmar's motion for conditional summary judgment against Onorino Bros., finding no evidence that Halmar controlled or supervised the work. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion due to unresolved questions of fact regarding the accident's cause, and also affirmed the denial of Onorino Bros.' motion to vacate the note of issue due to a lack of good cause.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationThird-Party LitigationLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffold AccidentWorkers' Compensation ClaimVicarious LiabilityFactual DisputeAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04420 [186 AD3d 522]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2020

Tomala-Campoverde v. Trumbull Equities, LLC

Cristobal Tomala-Campoverde, a construction worker, was injured while attempting to connect two steel beams, leading to a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law claims against the defendants/third-party plaintiffs. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law section 240(1) claim, determining the incident was not caused by a significant elevation differential. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law section 241(6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.3(c), citing unresolved factual disputes regarding the use of tag lines to control hoisted steel beams.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation DifferentialSteel BeamsTag LinesWorkplace SafetyPersonal InjuryThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

Labecki v. West Side Equities, LLC

The plaintiff initiated legal action seeking damages for injuries sustained during cement work at a building owned by West Equities and managed by Garfield Development. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, citing the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. On appeal, the plaintiff contested this dismissal, arguing a factual dispute regarding the employer's identity, which could impact the applicability of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. However, the appellate court determined that the action was precluded by the exclusivity provision for coemployees under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). The court found that Alan Garfield, involved with both defendant entities, was a coemployee, thereby making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

Workers' CompensationExclusivity ProvisionCoemployeeSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityNew York LawAppellate ReviewJudgment Affirmation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 113 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