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
Dec 16, 2011

Velasquez v. 795 Columbus LLC

The plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping on mud, rocks, and water at a construction site due to rain and a water main break. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Labor Law § 200 claims against defendant Tishman Construction and denied the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) (slipping hazards) was an applicable predicate for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the muddy condition constituted a 'foreign substance' on the 'floor'. The court found that Tishman Construction had notice of the hazardous condition and failed to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie showing of negligence. The claim for lost wages was appropriately deferred to trial as an issue of damages.

Construction AccidentSlip and FallLabor Law ComplianceHazardous Work ConditionsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewVicarious Employer LiabilityNotice of HazardConstruction SafetyNew York Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1997

Thompson v. Ludovico

The plaintiff appealed an order that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing causes of action under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars. The court affirmed the order, reasoning that the plaintiff's injury, sustained when a truck crane's boom slipped and crushed his arm, was not an elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) but a usual and ordinary construction site danger. Furthermore, the denial of leave to amend the bill of particulars was upheld due to the plaintiff's gross laches, as more than five years elapsed without explanation. Additionally, the Industrial Code sections cited in the proposed amendment were deemed either general safety standards or inapplicable to the case, further supporting the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentBill of ParticularsAmendmentLachesIndustrial CodeElevation-Related Risk
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Fowler

The case involves twelve airline plaintiffs, including Mohawk, American, and TWA, seeking a declaratory judgment against the New York State Commission for Human Rights. The plaintiffs challenged the Commission's jurisdiction to apply New York's age discrimination provisions (Article 15 of the Executive Law) to their stewardesses operating in interstate and foreign air transportation. They argued that the state law unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce, was preempted by federal acts like the Railway Labor Act and Federal Aviation Act, and that the age discrimination provisions did not apply to individuals under 40. District Judge Frederick Van Pelt Bryan dismissed the action, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, the issues were not ripe for judicial review, and federal court abstention was appropriate given the unsettled state law questions and the potential for disrupting state administrative processes.

Age DiscriminationInterstate CommerceFederal PreemptionDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative RemediesJudicial ReviewAbstention DoctrineAirline IndustryStewardessesHuman Rights Commission
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1199seiu Nat'l Benefit Fund v. Allergan, Inc. (In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.)

This multi-district litigation addresses defendant Allergan's alleged anticompetitive efforts to delay FDA approval of generic versions of its dry-eye medication, Restasis®. Plaintiffs, comprising Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs, contend Allergan engaged in various unlawful strategies, including filing sham citizen petitions, defrauding the USPTO to secure "second-wave" patents, wrongfully listing these patents, initiating sham patent infringement lawsuits, and transferring patents to a Native American tribe to invoke sovereign immunity. Allergan moved to dismiss the consolidated complaints, asserting that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that its actions caused any delay in generic market entry. The court, however, denied Allergan's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that Allergan's aggressive and persistent tactics could have effectively delayed competition.

AntitrustPharmaceutical IndustryGeneric DrugsFDA ApprovalPatent InfringementCitizen PetitionsHatch-Waxman ActMonopolyRestasisDry Eye Medication
References
34
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06161
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2022

Cotroneo v. Van Wagner Sign Erectors, LLC

Plaintiff Cosmo Cotroneo appealed an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the falling gang box lid was a routine workplace risk and not a material requiring hoisting or securing under the statute. However, the court modified the order to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding that missing struts on the gang box constituted a liability as they were safety devices. The defendants' arguments regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence for damaging the struts were found to be speculative. Additionally, the court confirmed that the Van Wagner/Outfront defendants were proper Labor Law defendants, acting as general contractors and agents of the owner.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionGravity-Related RiskGang BoxSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceOwner's AgentGeneral Contractor
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2009

Roslies-Perez v. SUPERIOR FORESTRY SERVICE, INC.

Plaintiffs, temporary foreign guestworkers, filed a collective action against Superior Forestry Services, Inc. and its management under FLSA and AWPA. The defendants were repeatedly found in contempt for violating a protective order by intimidating potential class members and interfering with court-ordered meetings. Previous sanctions included extending the opt-in period and awarding attorney's fees. The court granted the plaintiffs' third contempt motion, finding further violations, including interference with meetings in Mexico and delayed payment of fees. As a sanction, the court barred the defendants from presenting proof to contest the plaintiffs' damages and ordered additional notice and fee payments, issuing a warning of default judgment for any future contumacious behavior.

Contempt of courtFLSAAWPAH-2B visasGuestworkersLabor lawProtective order violationEquitable tollingSanctionsClass action
References
34
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06248 [164 AD3d 1458]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Neve v. City of New York

Plaintiff Anthony Neve, a New York City Sanitation worker, was allegedly injured when the seat of a street sweeper he operated collapsed. He sued the City of New York for negligence. The City initiated third-party actions against Johnston Sweeper Company (manufacturer) and Seats, Inc. (seat manufacturer). Following the City's disposal of the sweeper, the plaintiff was granted an adverse inference charge for spoliation of evidence. Both the plaintiff and Johnston Sweeper Company moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, clarifying that the adverse inference charge did not eliminate the plaintiff's burden to prove all elements of his negligence claim, including the defect's existence and causation.

spoliation of evidencesummary judgmentadverse inferencenegligencepersonal injurythird-party actionproduct liabilityappellate reviewmunicipal liabilitysanitation worker
References
4
Case No. 02A01-9505-CV-00118
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1996

Cassandra Hughlett v. Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis A/K/A The Med

Plaintiff Cassandra Hughlett underwent a cesarean section in 1991, during which a surgical sponge was allegedly left in her abdomen by the defendants, Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis, a/k/a "The Med," and the University of Tennessee Medical Group, Inc. She subsequently experienced severe pain and required readmission to remove the foreign body, leading her to file a medical malpractice suit alleging negligence. The parties reached a settlement, but a dispute remained regarding whether the plaintiff could recover $6,777.17 in medical expenses paid by the Tennessee Medicaid program from the defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of Hughlett, holding that Medicaid payments were recoverable. "The Med" appealed, arguing that social security benefits (which they claimed Medicaid payments were part of) are collateral sources under T.C.A. § 29-26-119 and thus not recoverable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, citing Nance by Nance v. Westside Hosp. and federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1396a (a) 25(A)), which mandates states to pursue recovery from legally liable third parties. The court concluded that the plaintiff's losses were not "replaced or indemnified" due to the state's right of subrogation for Medicaid payments, making the benefits recoverable.

Medical MalpracticeMedicaid PaymentsCollateral Source RuleSubrogation RightsSocial Security BenefitsHealth Care Provider NegligenceSurgical ErrorForeign Body RetentionCesarean Section ComplicationsDamages Recovery
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03329
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2023

Castro v. Wythe Gardens, LLC

The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries after tripping in a gap between a staircase step and landing. He initiated an action against Express Builders, the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6). Express Builders then filed third-party claims seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed a third-party indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified this ruling, determining that Labor Law section 240(1) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) were not applicable to the plaintiff's injuries as they did not involve elevation-related risks or a hazardous opening for a complete fall. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the plaintiff under Labor Law section 241(6), based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) pertaining to tripping hazards. The Appellate Division also reinstated the contractual indemnification claim against Bayport Construction Corp., citing triable issues of fact, and upheld the denial of Express Builders' indemnification claims against Urban Precast and Urban Erectors due to unresolved questions regarding Express Builders' own negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationTripping HazardElevation-Related RiskAppellate DivisionPersonal InjurySubcontractor Agreement
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 11,923 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