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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01845
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Goya v. Longwood Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.

This case from the Appellate Division, First Department, involves appeals related to a Labor Law action stemming from an incident on a fire escape ladder. The court modified several Supreme Court orders, granting summary judgment dismissal for A.A.D. Construction Corp. on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while denying renewal for a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also addressed complex issues of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance among various defendants and third-party defendants, including Longwood Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., Melcara Corp., AIM Construction of NY Inc., Clark & Wilkins Industries, Inc., Cross Contracting, Inc., and Triboro Maintenance Corp. The court affirmed in part, modified in part, and reversed a judgment dismissing a contribution claim, reinstating it.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceElevation-Related RiskFire Escape LadderStatutory AgentAnti-Subrogation
References
24
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01838
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2019

Haynes v. Boricua Vil. Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.

Ewart A. Haynes, a plaintiff, was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim after sustaining an electrical shock on a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants failed to demonstrate a factual issue regarding their violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.13 (b) (3) and (4) and its proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for defendant Knickerbocker Construction II, LLC, on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved issues of fact concerning notice of a defective condition. Motions for contractual and common-law indemnification against third-party defendants United Commercial Development, LLC, and Evergreen Electrical Corp. were also properly denied due to these outstanding factual disputes. The decision highlights the importance of maintaining a safe work environment and addressing premises defects.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentNegligenceIndemnificationElectrical ShockConstruction AccidentDefective ConditionAppellate ReviewProximate Cause
References
6
Case No. 34 SSM 30
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2020

Waldemar Biaca-Neto v. Boston Road II Housing Development Fund Corporation

Plaintiff Waldemar Biaca-Neto sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold while attempting to enter a building through a window cutout. Defendants, including Mountco Construction and Development Corp., sought summary judgment, arguing plaintiff's failure to use available safety devices was the sole proximate cause of his injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1). The New York Court of Appeals determined that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff knew he was expected to use the safety devices, considering an alleged "accepted practice" of entering through window cut-outs. The Court modified the Appellate Division's order, denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) and related loss of consortium claims, and affirmed as modified. A dissenting opinion contended that plaintiff's own negligence, in choosing convenience over safety despite available devices, was the sole proximate cause.

Scaffolding accidentConstruction worker injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Sole proximate causeSummary judgment motionTriable issue of factWorker safety devicesLoss of consortiumAppellate reviewNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07499
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2021

Caban v. 1691 Fulton Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order dismissing plaintiff Eliezer Caban's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 1691 Fulton Avenue Housing Development Fund Corporation et al. The court found that replacing a light ballast constituted routine maintenance, falling outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). Furthermore, Labor Law § 241 (6) was deemed inapplicable because the work was unrelated to construction, excavation, or demolition activities. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims under these statutes were denied, rendering the defendants' Workers' Compensation Law defense academic.

Routine MaintenanceLabor Law § 240(1) Claim DismissedLabor Law § 241(6) Claim DismissedSummary Judgment GrantAppellate AffirmationConstruction Work InapplicabilityWorkers' Compensation Defense Academic
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05956 [242 AD3d 1212]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2025

Oliveira v. Rockaway Vil. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of RC Structures, allegedly tripped over a shovel at a construction site in May 2020 and subsequently sued Rockaway Village Housing Development Fund Corporation (owner) and Lettire Construction Corp. (general contractor) for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2). On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, denying the defendants' motion. The court found that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) concerning debris and scattered tools, and whether the shovel was an integral part of the work. Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Construction Site InjuryTrip and FallSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law ViolationSafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ProvisionDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Pierce

The City of New York (NYC) initiated an action against the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Jersey City to prevent the award of Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) funds for the Harborside development. NYC alleged that HUD's approval violated 42 U.S.C. § 5318(h) because a required job replacement program, tied to Bankers Trust Co.'s move to Jersey City, was eliminated. HUD subsequently withdrew its approval of the amended UDAG grant and is reconsidering the funding. Jersey City moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, while NYC formally moved for a stay. The court granted NYC's motion for a stay, reasoning that HUD's reconsideration effectively eliminated the subject matter dispute, rendering any adjudication by the court advisory and not ripe for resolution. The court also found no prejudice to Jersey City in granting the stay.

Urban Development Action GrantUDAGHousing and Urban DevelopmentHUDJob Replacement ProgramStay of ActionJurisdictionMootnessRipenessFederal Civil Procedure
References
6
Case No. No. 36, No. 37
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2023

Bryan Scurry v. New York City Housing Authority, Estate of Tayshana Murphy v. New York City Housing Authority

This case involves two consolidated appeals concerning negligence claims against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for injuries and deaths resulting from intruder attacks in public housing complexes with broken exterior door locks. In both cases, the victims (Ms. Crushshon and Ms. Murphy) were targeted by assailants who gained access through negligently maintained doors. NYCHA sought summary judgment, arguing that the targeted nature of the attacks severed the causal link between its negligence and the harm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment in Scurry and reversed the grant of summary judgment in Murphy, reiterating that proximate cause is generally a question of fact for the jury. The court emphasized that the risk of intruders harming residents through unsecured doors is precisely the risk that renders a landlord negligent, and that an assailant's intent does not automatically sever the causal chain.

NegligencePremises LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLandlord DutyForeseeabilityTargeted AttackSecurity MeasuresBroken Locks
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2001

Padilla v. Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corp.

This case involves a plaintiff, a laborer, who suffered an injury while working on a renovation project for Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corporation, whose construction manager was Humphreys & Harding, Inc. The plaintiff was guiding a concrete sump housing into an excavation vault when it slipped, amputating two toes. The plaintiff initiated an action against the owner, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and specific Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR part 23). The owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against Humphreys & Harding for indemnification. The motion court initially dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, but on appeal, the decision was reversed. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently raised triable issues of fact regarding violations of Industrial Code sections 23-9.2 (g), 23-9.4 (e) (1) and (2), and 23-9.2 (b) (2), which were concrete enough to support a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6).

Construction accidentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code violationsSummary judgment appealAppellate reviewNondelegable dutyTriable issues of factPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyBackhoe operation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Thirteenth Street Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Petitioners, comprising local condominium boards, tenants, and residents, challenged the New York State Urban Development Corporation's (UDC) determination to acquire a lot for a homeless housing facility. They argued that UDC exceeded its statutory jurisdiction, its findings were defective, the project's funding was illegal, and its use of override powers was improper. The court affirmed UDC's determination, concluding that its actions were within its statutory authority, its findings were well-supported by the record, and the funding and override powers were appropriately exercised. Additionally, the court reviewed and upheld the Housing Finance Agency's (HFA) negative environmental declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court also dismissed claims of unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, referencing established precedents.

CondemnationEminent DomainUrban DevelopmentHomeless HousingSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewStatutory JurisdictionOverride PowersPublic PurposeBlighted Areas
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,902 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