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
Mar 07, 2012

Edick v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff was injured when he slipped on ice and fell at a construction site owned by General Electric Company, where LeChase Construction Services, LLC was the general contractor. He sued both defendants alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied summary judgment for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Defendants appealed this partial denial, arguing they neither created the condition nor had notice, and that the storm in progress rule applied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding factual issues regarding defendants' notice and control, and rejecting the storm in progress rule defense.

Slip and FallConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIce and SnowLabor LawGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. General Design and Development, Inc.

Jerry Johnson was severely injured in November 1991 when a drill bound, causing him to fall from a stepladder at a construction site. He and his spouse sued the general contractor, General Design and Development, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), among other claims. General subsequently initiated a third-party action against subcontractors Omni Plumbing Company and Thomas P. Pleat Construction, Inc., seeking contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs were granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) by the Supreme Court. The defendants appealed, contending the injuries were not elevation-related. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the stepladder was inadequate and the accident constituted an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus establishing a prima facie violation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightScaffolding LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryContractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityIndemnification
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2000

Rosenberg v. Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc.

Robert Rosenberg, an employee of an alarm company, was allegedly injured after tripping over cardboard at a construction site. He and his wife sued Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc. (the general contractor) and Dave Mims Fifth Generation Painting Contractors (a subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Mims but denied Krupinski's motion for similar relief. On appeal, the order was modified; Krupinski's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim was granted, as Krupinski established it had no authority to control the activity causing the injury. However, the motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly denied due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a passageway or work area and whether specific regulations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) or (2)) were violated, and whether Krupinski was still the general contractor at the time of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactLabor Law CompliancePremises LiabilitySubcontractor
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2002

Shields v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff Martin Shields, employed by third-party defendant Raytheon Constructors, Inc., suffered an injury while fabricating flanges for a rail car unloading building at a General Electric (GE) site. Shields and his spouse initiated an action against GE and Arayco, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims but partially denied the motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On cross-appeals, the court affirmed the dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, concluding GE lacked supervisory control. It also affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding 12 NYCRR 23-1.10 (b) (1) sufficiently specific but noting unresolved factual questions about proximate cause.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeProximate CauseSummary JudgmentSupervisory ControlOn-Off SwitchHand Tool Safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. East 87th & 88th Street Contracting Co.

This case addresses a motion to set aside a $75,000 verdict, focusing on the interpretation of the 1969 amendment to Labor Law section 241 concerning general contractors' liability for construction worker injuries. The plaintiff, injured in 1971 while working for a subcontractor, sued the general contractor, who then sought indemnification from the subcontractor-employer. The court analyzed conflicting appellate decisions regarding whether the amendment eliminated the requirement to establish the general contractor's active control over the work. Ultimately, the court concluded that the law regarding control remains unchanged and set aside the verdict, dismissing the complaints. The decision also delved into policy considerations concerning workmen's compensation as the exclusive remedy against employers and incentives for workplace safety.

Labor Law § 241General Contractor LiabilityConstruction Worker InjurySubcontractor IndemnificationWorkmen's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate Division ConflictSafety RegulationsTort ActionEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2000

Ertner v. County of Chenango

Petitioner, a correction officer employed by the Chenango County Sheriff's Department, sustained injuries after falling downstairs while inspecting cells at the County Jail. She was awarded workers' compensation benefits but subsequently denied General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits, with the denial based on the injury not being incurred during a job function "peculiar to a correction officer." Petitioner's challenge to this determination was dismissed by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Court affirmed the dismissal, distinguishing between Workers' Compensation Law and General Municipal Law § 207-c, stating the latter applies to injuries incurred from "heightened risks and duties" peculiar to specialized employment, which a fall down stairs is not considered.

Correction Officer InjuryGeneral Municipal LawWorkers CompensationPublic Safety Officer BenefitsLine of DutyHeightened RiskJob FunctionAppellate DecisionMunicipal EmployeeInjury Classification
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M. Cristo, Inc. v. State of New York Office of General Services

This dissenting opinion by Staley, Jr., J. concerns the rejection of a low bid from a petitioner by the Office of General Services. The rejection was based on the petitioner's unresolved labor dispute with Laborers Local No. 190, which the Office of General Services feared would cause disruption and delay to the South Mall project, a 'time of the essence' contract. Staley, Jr., J. argues that the State's action was lawful, citing State Finance Law § 174 and previous cases that permit bid rejection in the best interests of the State, especially when a labor dispute threatens project completion. The dissent distinguishes this case from precedents involving mere threats of union action. However, the majority decision, which this opinion dissents from, reversed the judgment and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Labor DisputeBid RejectionState ContractPublic WorksTime of EssenceJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionProcurement LawNonunion WorkersProject Delay
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 1997

Samuel v. General Cinema Theaters, Inc.

This case involves the appellate review and affirmation of two orders issued by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The first order granted summary judgment on liability to a plaintiff laborer under Labor Law § 240 (1), following an injury sustained when a scaffold toppled. The second order denied the third-party plaintiff general contractor's renewed motion for summary judgment regarding contractual and common-law indemnification against the third-party defendant subcontractor, who was the plaintiff's employer. The denial stemmed from unresolved issues of fact concerning the general contractor's supervision and control over the worksite and its authority to address safety violations. Both judicial orders were unanimously affirmed without costs.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffold AccidentIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party LitigationWorksite SafetyFactual DisputeAppellate ReviewConstruction InjuryEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2000

Sutherland v. Village of Suffern

The petitioner, a police officer, was injured while attempting to open a door at the station house and subsequently applied for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. The Chief of the Village of Suffern Police Department denied these benefits, leading the petitioner to initiate an Article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, denied the petition and dismissed the case. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court citing *Matter of Balcerak v County of Nassau* to underscore that General Municipal Law § 207-c is intended for injuries arising from heightened risks associated with criminal justice duties, concluding the denial was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also clarified that claims for Workers' Compensation benefits should be addressed to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Police officer injuryGeneral Municipal Law 207-c benefitsDenial of benefitsScope of employmentAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Division decisionWorkers' Compensation jurisdictionMunicipal employee benefitsSuffern Police Department
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 15,697 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