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

Howell v. Karl Koch Erecting Corp.

Jeffrey Howell, a hoisting machine operator, slipped and fell on a crane deck, alleging injuries due to oil and prior complaints about leaks. He brought an action under Labor Law § 241 (6), supported by industrial regulations 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and 23-8.1 (b) (1), (2), and (5). The court deemed 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (b) (1) (mandatory monthly crane inspection) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) (slipping hazards relief) specific enough for a § 241 (6) claim. The defendant, Karl Koch Erecting Corp., moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, ruling that the crane deck was an 'elevated working surface' under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and that triable issues of fact remained regarding compliance with the regulations.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySlip and FallCrane AccidentIndustrial CodeSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorConstruction SiteStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04794 [231 AD3d 762]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2024

Shewprasad v. KSK Constr. Group, LLC

The plaintiff, Melvin Shewprasad, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 241 (6). Shewprasad was allegedly injured when steel railings fell on him at a construction site in Brooklyn. He claimed violations of Industrial Code provisions 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) and 23-2.1 (a) (1). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to prima facie establish the applicability of the cited Industrial Code provisions to the circumstances of his case. Specifically, the court noted that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) (tripping hazards) was not shown to be applicable, and the plaintiff did not eliminate all factual issues regarding whether the accident occurred in a "passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare" as required by 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1).

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodeTripping HazardMaterial StorageProximate CauseStatutory ViolationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08577
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2018

Quigley v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Plaintiff Thomas Quigley sustained injuries after slipping on snow-covered pipes located directly outside his employer's work site shanty. The case involved claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) based on alleged violations of Industrial Code sections 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), (e)(1), and (e)(2), as well as common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200. The court modified a prior order, denying defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), finding an issue of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a walkway. It affirmed the dismissal of the claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e)(1) as inapplicable to outdoor areas, but affirmed the denial of dismissal for claims based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e)(2), 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a)(1), common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 200. The appellate court concluded that defendants failed to demonstrate lack of notice regarding the dangerous condition.

Slip and fallConstruction site accidentLabor LawIndustrial CodePremises liabilityDangerous conditionSummary judgmentDuty to warnNoticeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04671 [241 AD3d 717]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Santos v. Leeward Living, LLC

Plaintiff Jose Santos was injured after falling through an unguarded attic floor opening during construction, suing the general contractor and fee owner under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted his motion for summary judgment on liability for both sections, partially based on Industrial Code violations. The Appellate Division modified this, affirming liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially under § 241 (6) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [b] [1] [i]), while denying the motion for other Industrial Code sections (12 NYCRR 23-1.15, 23-1.16) as inapplicable. The court also established the fee owner's liability and denied their homeowners' exemption claim.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardUnguarded OpeningAttic Floor FallConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilityFee Owner LiabilityHomeowners' Exemption
References
22
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03769
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2023

Dyszkiewicz v. City of New York

The plaintiff, Dariusz Dyszkiewicz, appealed from a judgment dismissing his personal injury complaint against the City of New York and other defendants. The plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries when he slipped and fell down stairs while working on a classroom renovation project. He asserted causes of action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing certain aspects of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. Following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, the complaint was dismissed. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding that specific Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [e] and 23-2.1 [b]) were inapplicable and that the jury's verdict regarding other provisions (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [d] and 23-3.3 [e]) was supported by a valid line of reasoning and a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSlip and FallLabor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeSummary JudgmentJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyPremises Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sopha v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Plaintiff, an asbestos abatement worker, suffered injuries after falling approximately 4 to 5 feet from scaffolding when his work suit snagged on a windowsill while attempting to exit a second-story window. The Supreme Court correctly determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) was applicable but erred in granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, as factual questions remained regarding the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (f), 23-1.21 (b)(4), and 23-5.3 (f). However, other regulations, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b)(1), 23-2.7, and 23-5.1 (f), were found inapplicable. The final order was modified to deny the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Asbestos AbatementScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseWorker SafetyConstruction AccidentNew York RegulationsAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1998

O'Connor v. Lincoln Metrocenter Partners, L.P.

Plaintiff, an employee of S&A Concrete Co., suffered an injury on January 3, 1994, when he fell into an uncovered floor opening at a construction site while stripping forms. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied defendant-appellant R&J Construction Corp.'s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, R&J Construction Corp. contended that the plaintiff was not engaged in gravity-related work covered by Labor Law § 240 (1), but the appellate court affirmed, finding the plaintiff was protected as a person employed in the erection of a building. The court further determined that R&J, as an agent of the general contractor Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., had the duty to cover floor openings and was thus liable under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200. The appellate court also affirmed the lower court's effective grant of a motion to amend pleadings, allowing the plaintiff to assert specific Industrial Code violations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i) and 23-2.4 (b) (1) (i)). An appeal from a subsequent order denying reargument was dismissed as nonappealable.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentGravity-Related RiskFloor Opening SafetyContractor LiabilityAgent LiabilityIndustrial Code
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00226 [212 AD3d 746]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2023

Stewart v. Brookfield Off. Props., Inc.

The plaintiff, Larry Stewart, sought damages for personal injuries sustained from a fall at a construction site, allegedly due to tripping on a raised concrete floor. He initiated an action against Brookfield Office Properties, Inc., Americon Construction, Inc., and Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, among others, claiming a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1). The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment in the Supreme Court, arguing the Industrial Code provision was inapplicable because the area of the fall was not a 'passageway.' The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, agreeing that the defendants had established prima facie that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) was not applicable under the circumstances.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyTripping HazardPassageway DefinitionNondelegable Duty
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. City of Corning

Plaintiff was injured after slipping or tripping on electrical wires and falling into a wastewater treatment tank. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the fall from ground level into an opening was not within the statute's purview, but denied dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim regarding 12 NYCRR 23-I. 7 (b) and (e) (2). The appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in denying dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim with respect to 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), as the plaintiff failed to present evidence of slippery conditions caused by foreign substances. Consequently, the appellate order was unanimously modified to dismiss the claim related to 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and affirmed as modified.

Labor LawSection 240(1)Section 241(6)Slipping HazardWastewater Treatment TankSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyConstruction Site
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03615 [184 AD3d 534]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2020

Sancino v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.

Plaintiff, an ironworker, was injured when a wheeled dumpster he was attempting to move over an unfinished floor covered by plywood slabs toppled over, allegedly injuring his toe. He commenced an action asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The motion court granted summary judgment dismissing both claims. The Appellate Division modified the order, reinstating the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding viable claims premised upon Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.28 (b), 23-1.5 (c), and 23-1.7 (e) (1). The court noted the area was a passageway and defendants failed to show the dumpster was not defective. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was abandoned by the plaintiff.

Ironworker InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndustrial Code ViolationsHand-propelled VehiclesDefective EquipmentPassageway SafetyPlywood HazardLabor Law Claims
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 16,357 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