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

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2013

Medina v. 42nd & 10th Assoc., LLC

The case involves an injured plaintiff's fall from a collapsing scaffold, leading to claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The court modified the prior orders, granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding defendants failed to provide adequate protection. Defendants' arguments of recalcitrant worker or sole proximate cause were rejected due to insufficient evidence. However, plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim was not established due to specific Industrial Code sections being insufficiently specific or having factual issues. The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against defendants were dismissed due to lack of evidence that defendants controlled the means or methods of the plaintiff's work.

Scaffold collapseLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentRecalcitrant worker defenseIndustrial Code violationProximate causeSite safetyWorker injuryConstruction accidentEmployer liability
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07546 [176 AD3d 562]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2019

Terc v. 535 Coster Realty Inc.

Plaintiff Domingo Feliz Terc appealed a decision regarding his claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) after falling from a ladder while dismantling a dust collecting tank. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law claims and denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, while granting plaintiff summary judgment to dismiss defendant's tenth affirmative defense. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, noting that factual issues regarding the nature of plaintiff's work precluded summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Additionally, plaintiff's evidence did not support findings for his Labor Law § 241 (6) claims based on Industrial Code sections 23-1.21 (b) (4) (i) and (iv). The court also affirmed the dismissal of defendant's affirmative defense concerning the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, finding no evidence that plaintiff was a general or special employee of the defendant.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Summary JudgmentLadder FallConstruction SafetyIndustrial Code ViolationWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmployeeDust Collecting TankAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04077 [240 AD3d 557]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2025

Acosta v. Shanahan Group, LLC

This case involves Fermin Gonzalez Acosta, who was injured when a rafter collapsed at a construction site, and his wife, who brought a derivative action against Shanahan Group, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability due to untimeliness and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs' motion was indeed untimely and that the defendant failed to establish prima facie that the injured plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court noted that the defendant's evidence did not prove the injured plaintiff could have used an available ladder for his task or knew he was expected to use it.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentTimeliness of MotionSole Proximate CauseSafety DevicesRafter CollapseAppellate ReviewComparative NegligenceConstruction Accident Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guaman v. New Sprout Presbyterian Church

The plaintiff was injured while working on a renovation for the New Sprout Presbyterian Church of New York, falling from a ladder placed on a scaffold. He initiated an action against the Church and Goodman Tech, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the Church, citing potential issues with the 'recalcitrant worker' defense. The appellate court reversed this decision, determining that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also found that the Church failed to present sufficient admissible evidence to support its 'recalcitrant worker' defense.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Scaffold FallLadder SafetySummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionRecalcitrant Worker DefenseLiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1997

Spiteri v. Chatwal Hotels

Plaintiff John Spiteri, an elevator repairman, suffered a fractured left heel after falling from a permanently affixed ladder while attempting to repair a broken elevator at the Best Western President Hotel. The ladder was not equipped with any safety devices. President Hotel Company (owner) moved to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found that plaintiff's work qualified as 'repair' under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the ladder, as the sole means of access to the elevator control room, subjected him to the type of risk the statute intended to obviate. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. However, claims against President under Labor Law § 241 (6), § 200, and common-law negligence were dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding construction site activity, supervisory control, or knowledge of ladder defects.

Ladder FallPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentNon-delegable DutyElevator RepairRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. Index No. 28997/20; Appeal No. 5887; Case No. 2025-00685
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Roque v. 240 Lincoln Place LLC

Plaintiff Antonio Rosario Roque sought summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim after falling from a 12-foot A-frame ladder that slipped while he was working on it. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion. Defendant 240 Lincoln Place LLC appealed, arguing that Roque was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, citing his use of a closed A-frame ladder and the availability of an eight-foot ladder. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court found that the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact, noting Roque's valid reasons for his ladder choice and the instability of the alternative ladder.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallWorker SafetyDefendant LiabilityPlaintiff RightsNegligence
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00690
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2024

Rodriguez v. Fawn E. Fourth St. LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was denied, and defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was granted. The Appellate Division modified this to deny defendants' motion as to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, while affirming other aspects. The court found triable issues regarding whether the replacement of a 700-pound water heater constituted a 'repair' under Labor Law § 240 (1) and if an elevation differential created a hazardous gravitational force. However, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was correctly dismissed due to lack of evidence for a specific Industrial Code violation or proximate causation.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWater Heater RepairElevation-Related HazardGravitational ForceIndustrial Code ViolationProximate CausationConstruction Work
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archie v. Todd Shipyards Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning a wrongful death action. The administratrix of a decedent’s estate sued Todd Shipyards Corporation after the decedent, an employee of Metalock Repair Service, Inc., drowned in a drydock. The decedent was working on a scaffold without guard rails or toe boards, in violation of multiple codes including the New York City Building Code, State Industrial Code, and Labor Law § 240(2). The original complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The appellate court found sufficient evidence of the defendant’s negligence, including statutory violations, to warrant submission to a jury. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized a less stringent burden of proof in death actions and that contributory negligence is a defense for the defendant to prove. The judgment dismissing the complaint was unanimously reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new trial.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceScaffold SafetyLabor Law ViolationsCircumstantial EvidencePrima Facie CaseDismissal ReversedRemanded for New TrialContributory NegligenceCustom and Usage
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2005

Gaffney v. BFP 300 Madison II, LLC

Plaintiff laborer was severely injured when a float scaffold collapsed, causing him to fall several stories. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240, despite its untimeliness, citing defendant Turner's delay in producing a witness. The recalcitrant worker defense was deemed unavailing due to lack of evidence of deliberate refusal to use safety devices. Summary judgment was also appropriate under Labor Law § 240 (2) as the scaffold was elevated more than 20 feet and lacked guardrails. The Supreme Court's order was unanimously affirmed.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffold collapseFall from heightConstruction accidentWorker injuryRecalcitrant worker defenseLiabilityAppellate decisionNew York law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 15,004 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