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

Buffalo Civic Auto Ramps, Inc. v. Serio

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Superintendent of Insurance, dated January 29, 2003, which reclassified parking ramp cashiers of Buffalo Civic Auto Ramps, Inc. (BCAR) from clerical "office employees" (Code 8810) to "automobile parking lot and drivers" (Code 8392) for workers’ compensation purposes. BCAR challenged this reclassification, arguing it was unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious, as their cashiers' duties were comparable to other clerical workers classified under Code 8810. The court found the Superintendent's determination lacked substantial evidence, noting no proof of increased hazard for BCAR cashiers compared to pari-mutuel clerks or bus terminal cashiers. The court also deemed the determination arbitrary and capricious due to inconsistent treatment of similarly situated cashiers. Consequently, the court vacated and annulled the Superintendent's determination and remanded the matter to the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board for further proceedings.

ReclassificationWorkers' Compensation InsuranceAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceArbitrary and CapriciousInsurance LawClerical ClassificationParking Garage Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Berweger v. County of Orange

Plaintiffs Lurana M. Berweger and Susan E. Menon, nurses at the Orange County Correctional Facility, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for criticizing the County’s Department of Mental Health's (DMH) inadequate inmate medical care. They also brought a state claim under New York State Labor Law § 740. The defendants included the County of Orange, County Executive Joseph G. Rampe, Commissioner of Mental Health Chris Ashman, County Attorney Richard Golden, and their private employer, Eastern Health Care Group, Inc. (EHG). The court granted summary judgment for Ashman and Golden on the § 1983 claims, citing lack of evidence, but denied it for Rampe, EHG, and the County due to remaining factual disputes regarding Rampe's involvement and EHG's potential state actor status. All state whistleblower claims were dismissed as plaintiffs complained about a third party (DMH), not their direct employer. EHG's motion for attorneys' fees and Rule 11 sanctions was denied, as Menon's claim was not deemed frivolous.

Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983)Whistleblower ProtectionWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentFirst AmendmentMunicipal LiabilityState Actor DoctrineIndependent Contractor LiabilityCorrectional HealthcareOrange County
References
27
Case No. ADJ7843441
Regular
Feb 15, 2013

MICHAEL MENDOZA vs. KELLY SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE c/o ESIS

In Mendoza v. Kelly Services, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant's injury, sustained while walking from an employer-assigned parking lot to the worksite, was not barred by the going and coming rule. The applicant was injured crossing a freeway on-ramp when a truck struck him. The Board reasoned that the applicant had already entered the employer's premises and the employment relationship had commenced when he was injured.

Going and coming ruleIndustrial injuryDeferred body partsParking lotEmployer premisesUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideParking placardFreeway on-rampAOE/COE
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2008

Sinkaus v. Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Co.

Plaintiffs appealed an order dismissing their complaint regarding a worker's injury sustained on a ramp. They alleged the ramp had an excessively steep slope, leading to a cart rolling over a worker's foot while being pushed uphill. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding the accident was not due to elevation-related gravity hazards under Labor Law § 240 (1). Claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) were also dismissed, as evidence showed the ramp's slope was less than the 25% threshold cited by plaintiffs. Furthermore, Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against various defendants were dismissed, as no defect proximately caused the injury, and one defendant did not supervise or control the injured plaintiff's work.

Construction Site InjuryRamp SlopeLabor Law 240(1)Industrial Code 23-1.23(b)New York City Building Code 27-1051(d)Summary Judgment DismissalProximate Cause AnalysisWorkplace NegligenceElevation-Related HazardWorker's Foot Injury
References
4
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06656
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2025

O'Brien v. Tectonic Bldrs. Inc.

Plaintiff Kevin O'Brien, a marble-floor finisher, sustained shoulder injuries after tripping on a damaged makeshift ramp at a Manhattan construction site. The ramp, serving as a passageway, had been compromised by a heavy mechanical lift, causing its lower end to lift 2-3 inches off the floor. The Supreme Court initially denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting partial summary judgment, finding that the damaged ramp constituted a trippable obstruction in a passageway and working area, violating Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) and (2). The court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding the 'integral to the work' defense and comparative negligence.

Labor Law Section 241 (6)Industrial Code ViolationsTrip and Fall AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPassageway HazardWorking Area SafetyPartial Summary Judgment GrantedComparative Negligence Defense RejectedIntegral to Work Doctrine InapplicableRamp Damage
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2008

Weiss v. El Ad Properties NY LLC

A plaintiff worker, a carpenter, sustained injuries when an A-frame dolly he was guiding down a ramp veered, striking him in the face with metal studs. The worker filed a lawsuit against the property owner, El Ad Properties, and the general contractor, Tishman Construction, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) due to an unsafe ramp. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing compliance with the Industrial Code based on deposition testimony. However, the plaintiff's own testimony disputed the ramp's mandated width and proper plank spacing, raising a triable issue of fact regarding compliance with 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b) (3). Consequently, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of proving prima facie compliance, leading to the affirmation of the denial of their summary judgment motion.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeRamp SafetyConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryPremises LiabilityGeneral ContractorProperty OwnerTriable Issue of Fact
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trombetta v. 775 Park Avenue, Inc.

A building maintenance worker sustained personal injuries while pushing a trash cart up an allegedly excessively steep ramp. The worker filed an action against the former managing agent of the residential cooperative, alleging negligence in the ramp's design and construction. The defendant-appellant, the former managing agent, moved for summary judgment, arguing it was no longer the managing agent at the time of the injury and was also protected by the Workers’ Compensation Law’s exclusivity provisions. The Supreme Court in Bronx County denied these motions on two separate occasions. The Appellate Court unanimously affirmed the denial of summary judgment, holding that the former managing agent could be held liable for affirmative acts of negligence if it managed the premises when the defective ramp was built. Additionally, the court found that the Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity provisions did not apply since the appellant had no connection with the building at the time of the plaintiff’s injury.

Personal InjuryBuilding MaintenanceRamp DefectNegligenceSummary Judgment DenialManaging Agent LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityPremises LiabilityAffirmative NegligenceDesign and Construction Defect
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereda v. Grace Line, Inc.

This case involves a stevedore who brought an action for personal injuries against Grace Line, Inc., the owner of a ship where the accident occurred. The stevedore, while carrying bananas, fell from a ramp improvised from loose planks. The claim was based on negligence, not unseaworthiness. The court found no evidence that the manner in which the ramp was formed, of loose planks, was contrary to good or accepted practice. Consequently, the complaint against defendant Grace Line, Inc. was dismissed, modifying a previous judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the third-party defendants against third-party plaintiff Grace Line, Inc.

Personal InjuryStevedoreNegligenceShip AccidentWorkplace SafetyRamp AccidentLoose PlanksComplaint DismissalAppellate DecisionThird-Party Claim
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1989

Amico v. Park Avenue Plaza Co.

Plaintiff, a laborer employed by Park Avenue Enterprises, Inc., suffered a disabling injury after falling from the fourteenth floor while attempting to step from a building to an exterior hoist tower without a ramp. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability against the building owner, Park Avenue Plaza Co., and the general contractor, Park Avenue Enterprises, Inc., citing violations of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The initial Supreme Court order granted this motion, denying cross-motions from Circle Industries Corp. and Heydt Contracting. The appellate court modified this decision, reversing the denial of summary judgment for Heydt Contracting Corp. due to evidence that they were not responsible for the ramps, while otherwise affirming the order.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyScaffoldingHoist TowerProximate CauseAppellate DivisionNew York Supreme CourtWorker Injury
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04821
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Liu v. Whitestar Consulting & Contr., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a prior order concerning a construction site accident where plaintiff Noah Liu fell 20 to 25 feet from an unguarded plywood ramp. The court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Moinian, Newmark, and Whitestar Consulting & Contracting, Inc. It was determined that the ramp, spanning a significant height differential and lacking safety devices, fell under the purview of Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss this claim were denied, and the plaintiffs were awarded summary judgment as to liability. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were deemed academic in light of this ruling.

Construction accidentLabor Lawunguarded rampfall from heightsummary judgmentAppellate Divisionpersonal injurypremises liabilityelevation differentialsafety devices
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 44 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