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. 2020 NY Slip Op 07121 [188 AD3d 1292]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Villada v. 452 Fifth Owners, LLC

The plaintiff, Carlos Villada, was allegedly injured while working on a roof demolition project at property owned by 452 Fifth Owners, LLC. He was injured when a wheeled dumpster he was pulling up a plywood ramp tipped over. Villada commenced an action against 452 Fifth Owners, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court denied 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment dismissing these causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment. The court found that 452 Fifth established, prima facie, that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and did not have the authority to supervise or control the work. The cross-appeal by CBRE, Inc. was dismissed.

Personal InjuryRoof DemolitionSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReversalLabor Law ComplianceDangerous ConditionSupervision and Control
References
10
Case No. 04-0550
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2006

Fifth Club, Inc. and David A. West v. Roberto Ramirez

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed the liability of an employer for the acts of an independent contractor providing security services. The case stemmed from an incident at Club Rodéo where security guard David West, an independent contractor, injured Roberto Ramirez, who subsequently sued Fifth Club, Inc. (the owner) and West. Ramirez argued for vicarious liability against Fifth Club based on a "personal character exception" for security work, and alleged negligence and malice in West's hiring. The Court declined to adopt a distinct personal character exception, asserting that employer liability is governed by existing control or nondelegable duty exceptions. Finding insufficient evidence that Fifth Club controlled West's actions or was negligent/malicious in his hiring, the Court reversed the judgment against Fifth Club, Inc. However, the Court affirmed the award of future mental anguish damages against David West, finding sufficient evidence to support this claim.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityPersonal Character ExceptionSecurity ServicesNegligent HiringMaliceFuture Mental Anguish DamagesPremises LiabilityNondelegable DutyTortious Acts
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jefferies v. McKee Foods Corp.

The employer, McKee Foods Corporation, appealed a trial court's award of 50% permanent partial disability to employee Eva Mae Jefferies in a workers' compensation case. The core dispute was whether the medical impairment rating should be calculated using the Fourth or Fifth Edition of the AMA Guidelines. Dr. Hodges initially rated Jefferies at 8% impairment under the Fourth Edition, which increased to 25% under the Fifth Edition without any change in her medical condition. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in applying the Fifth Edition and held that the Guidelines in effect at the time of maximum medical improvement (Fourth Edition) should apply. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical Impairment RatingAMA Guidelines (Fourth Edition)AMA Guidelines (Fifth Edition)Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Vocational DisabilityStatutory InterpretationTennessee Supreme CourtAppellate ReviewReversal and Remand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1989

Berrios v. 1115 Fifth Avenue Corp.

Ricardo Berrios, an employee of Opal Window Cleaning Company, suffered injuries from a four-story fall while cleaning a window. He initiated a lawsuit against the building owner, 1115 Fifth Avenue Corporation, and its managing agent, Douglas-Elliman, Gibbons & Ives, who subsequently impleaded Opal Window Cleaning Company and the apartment residents, the Heironimuses. A jury determined that Berrios was 100% responsible for his injuries due to his failure to wear a provided safety belt, which was found to be in good condition. On appeal, the core issue was whether the owner and agent were liable under Labor Law § 202 for Berrios's failure to use safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, clarifying that while Labor Law § 202 mandates owners to provide safe means, it does not extend responsibility to ensure the worker's utilization of such safety equipment.

Window Cleaning AccidentLabor Law 202Safety BeltPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationOwner LiabilityAgent LiabilityEmployer LiabilityThird-Party LiabilityComparative Negligence
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03852 [161 AD3d 1183]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Munzon v. Victor at Fifth, LLC

Juan P. Munzon, a laborer, was injured during demolition work when he fell from a wooden beam after detaching his safety harness to help a coworker move a heavy metal beam. The metal beam struck the wooden beam, causing Munzon to fall from the fourth to the third floor. Munzon sued Victor at Fifth, LLC, and a general contractor/construction manager, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to Munzon on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. A jury subsequently awarded Munzon damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that Munzon established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to inadequate safety equipment, and found that the jury's awards for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses were reasonable and did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryLabor Law ViolationElevated Work SiteSummary JudgmentLiabilityDamages AwardPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesAppellate ReviewConstruction Accident
References
27
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24241
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Cipriani Fifth Ave., LLC v. RPCI Landmark Props., LLC

Cipriani Fifth Avenue, LLC, operating the Rainbow Room at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, sought a preliminary injunction against its landlord, RCPI Landmark Properties, LLC, to prevent the implementation of new security measures, specifically metal detectors, applicable only to Cipriani's employees and guests. Cipriani alleged that these measures constituted a breach of lease, irreparable harm to its reputation and business, and discriminatory enforcement of rules. The defendant argued that heightened security was necessary in a post-9/11 world and permissible under the lease. The court analyzed the three prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury, and a balancing of the equities. The court denied the injunction, finding that Cipriani failed to establish a prima facie showing of likelihood of success on the merits, as the lease granted the landlord the right to alter security systems and the rules and regulations were not applied in a discriminatory fashion.

Landlord-Tenant DisputePreliminary InjunctionLease BreachCommercial PropertyBuilding SecurityIrreparable InjuryEquity BalancingContract InterpretationDiscriminatory PracticeRockefeller Center
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 1946

In re the Arbitration between Transport Workers Union of America, C.I.O., & Fifth Avenue Coach Co.

The Transport Workers Union of America, O.I.O., applied to vacate an arbitration award made in a dispute with the Fifth Avenue Coach Company. The core of the dispute revolved around the implementation of one-man operation of double-deck buses and related employment terms. The Union contended that the arbitrator failed to render a decision on the primary question regarding the implementation of one-man operation, despite it being a key item in the submission agreement. The court found that the arbitrator explicitly avoided deciding this issue, thus failing to fulfill the terms of the submission. Consequently, the court ruled that the award was not mutual, final, and definite on all matters submitted for arbitration, rendering it invalid. The application to vacate the award was therefore granted, with an order for resubmission.

ArbitrationAward VacatedLabor DisputeCollective BargainingOne-Man OperationDouble-Deck BusesArbitrator AuthorityScope of SubmissionUnionPublic Transport
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05600 [198 AD3d 826]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2021

Rivas-Pichardo v. 292 Fifth Ave. Holdings, LLC

Cesar A. Rivas-Pichardo, a laborer, was injured during a demolition project when bricks ricocheted from a debris chute. He commenced an action against the property owner, 292 Fifth Avenue Holdings, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241-a, and 241 (6). The owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Pinnacle Demolition & Environmental Services Corp. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted parts of the defendant's and third-party defendant's motions to dismiss certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, finding that Labor Law § 240 (1) was implicated by the elevation-related risk, and accordingly granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability for that claim while denying Pinnacle's motions to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and certain provisions of 241 (6).

Personal InjuryDemolition ProjectLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Elevation-Related RiskDebris Chute AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyIndustrial Code Violations
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. v. Transport Workers of America, Local 100

Plaintiffs Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. and Surface Transit, Inc. sued Transport Workers of America, Local 100, Transport Workers of America, and Michael J. Quill for damages alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements following a 1962 strike. The Union defendants moved for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the arbitration clauses of their agreements. Defendant Michael J. Quill moved to dismiss the action against him, contending that Section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act does not permit actions against individual union officers. The court found the arbitration clauses sufficiently broad to cover the strike issue and granted the stay of proceedings. Additionally, the court granted Quill's motion to dismiss, citing Supreme Court precedent that such actions are against the union, not its president.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStrikeTaft-Hartley ActMotion to StayMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityIndividual LiabilityNo-Strike ClauseGrievance Procedure
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03562 [229 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2024

Rivera v. 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP

Plaintiff Angel Roman Caguana Rivera appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff was injured while removing metal ductwork, approximately 10 to 12 feet above the floor, using an A-frame ladder without other safety devices or assistance. The ductwork fell, striking the plaintiff and the ladder, causing him to fall and lose consciousness. The court found that the defendant, as the building owner, failed to provide proper protection as mandated by Labor Law § 240 (1), establishing a prima facie case for the plaintiff. The defendant's arguments, based on uncorroborated hearsay reports and speculative expert testimony, were deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentUnsecured LadderFalling ObjectConstruction AccidentAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentDemolition WorkRenovation ProjectWorker Safety
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 346 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