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

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. A.D. Development Ltd.

Frank Klein's motion to consolidate action numbers 1 and 2 was granted without opposition. Defendant Kala Zaveri, also president of A.D. Development Ltd., filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the consolidated action, arguing she was exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as an owner of a single-family dwelling. However, the court denied her motion, finding that the dwelling was part of a commercial enterprise intended for resale, not personal use. The court reasoned that the homeowner's exemption did not apply to commercial developers, emphasizing the statute's intent to place responsibility for worker safety on those best suited to provide such safeguards.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Homeowner ExemptionCommercial EnterpriseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyConsolidated ActionDeveloper LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 786
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1997

ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas.

This case clarifies the enforceability of indemnification agreements in construction contracts under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The Court of Appeals held that such agreements, if they purport to indemnify a general contractor for any portion of damages caused by its own negligence, are entirely void and unenforceable as against public policy, rather than merely partially unenforceable. The decision stemmed from two consolidated appeals, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Stottlar v Ginsburg Development Corp., where general contractors were found partially negligent for worker injuries. The Court affirmed the judgment in Itri and reversed the Appellate Division's decision in Stottlar, reinstating the Supreme Court's original judgment. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to prevent contractors from shifting liability for their own negligence.

Indemnification AgreementConstruction LawSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceStatutory InterpretationGeneral Obligations LawInsurance CoverageVoid ContractPublic PolicyNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp.

Plaintiff Robert Striegel sought partial summary judgment against Hillcrest Heights Development Corporation under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) for injuries sustained from a fall while working on a sloped roof. Striegel, an employee of Sahlem's Roofing and Siding, slipped on a frost-covered sub-roof, fell, and slid down the roof, alleging that Hillcrest, as owner and general contractor, failed to provide safety devices. Defendants argued that the injury was from lifting or that the fall was onto the roof surface, not from an elevated height, citing White v Sperry Supply & Warehouse. The court distinguished White, finding that the sloped roof in this case made the fall directly related to gravity, thus falling within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the court granted Striegel partial summary judgment on liability and also granted Hillcrest a conditional judgment for common-law indemnification against Sahlem’s, finding no active negligence on Hillcrest's part.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationLabor LawElevated Work SiteGravity-Related HazardRoofingFall ProtectionPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pryor v. Fisher (In Re Dimino)

The Chapter 7 trustee for Joseph T. Dimino sought to recover $55,000 and an additional $10,000 in pre-petition transfers made by the Debtor to Justin Fisher and Gary Donnelly. The Trustee argued these transfers were fraudulent conveyances made to satisfy legally deficient mechanic's liens and for no consideration, or in violation of usury laws. The Court found that while the mechanic's liens were defective, the transfers were not recoverable because the Debtor received reasonably equivalent value for valid antecedent debts owed to Fisher (a loan) and Donnelly (reimbursement for materials). The Court dismissed all of the Trustee's five causes of action, including claims under 11 U.S.C. §§ 541, 544, 548(a) and New York Debtor Creditor Law § 273, as well as claims regarding usury under New York General Obligations Law.

BankruptcyFraudulent ConveyanceMechanic's LiensUsuryAntecedent DebtReasonably Equivalent ValueChapter 7TrusteeDebtor Creditor LawNew York Law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Florio v. Fisher Development, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder placed on a scaffold while performing plastering work at a Gap store in Westport, Connecticut. Fisher Development, Inc., the general contractor, was sued for common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but denied dismissal for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. On appeal, it was determined that Connecticut law applied, making New York Labor Law sections inapplicable. The appeals court modified the previous decision, dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the common-law negligence claim, citing outstanding factual issues regarding Fisher's responsibility for safety.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffolding FallLadder SafetyGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor NegligenceChoice of LawNew York Labor LawConnecticut Common LawSummary Judgment
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05798 [209 AD3d 536]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2022

Padron v. Granite Broadway Dev. LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Padron sustained injuries after slipping on a watery stairwell at a construction site while employed by Transcontinental Contracting, Inc. Granite Broadway Development LLC (property owner) and CNY Builders 1717 LLC (construction manager) were initially granted summary judgment on contractual indemnification against Transcontinental and dismissal of Transcontinental's counterclaims by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Transcontinental's counterclaims, finding Granite free from negligence due to lack of onsite workers or safety-related visits. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying Granite's motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Transcontinental. This was because Granite was not explicitly named as 'Owner' in the relevant contract's definition section, and an un-dated, unsigned exhibit purporting to identify Granite as 'Owner' created a factual dispute regarding the parties' intent to be bound.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentSlipped and FellWatery ConditionNegligenceThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityOwner LiabilityContract Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v. Wyoming County Industrial Development Agency

This case addresses whether a construction project involving an industrial development agency (WCIDA) qualifies as a 'public improvement' under State Finance Law § 137, which would mandate the securing of payment bonds. Plaintiff Davidson, a supplier, was not paid for materials provided to a subcontractor on an energy cogeneration plant project developed by Indeck Energy Resources with WCIDA's assistance. Davidson sued WCIDA and Indeck for their alleged failure to require a bond. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Davidson, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the project was not a public improvement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that WCIDA's ownership was primarily for tax benefits, with the private entity, Indeck, bearing the economic risks and benefits. Consequently, the court held that the project was not a public improvement under the statute, and the complaint against the defendants was dismissed.

Industrial Development AgencyPublic ImprovementState Finance LawPayment BondLien LawConstruction ProjectPrivate EntityTax BenefitsCogeneration PlantAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 21,997 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