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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06413
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Cunha v. Crossroads II

Evandro Cunha, a laborer, sustained personal injuries at a construction site when an excavator rolled over his legs. He sued Crossroads II, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on several Industrial Code provisions, specifically 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (k), 23-9.4 (h) (4), 23-9.4 (h) (5), and 23-9.5 (c). The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (h) (5), and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment regarding the other cited Industrial Code provisions.

Labor LawPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentExcavator AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety RegulationsPrima Facie CaseLiability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giordano v. Forest City Ratner Companies

Brian Giordano, a carpenter, was injured at a construction site when a sheet of plywood struck him. He sued F.C. Foley Square Associates, LLC, and FCR Construction Services, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code sections 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a) and 23-2.4. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims based on both sections. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal regarding 12 NYCRR 23-2.4, finding it inapplicable to poured concrete construction. However, the court reversed the dismissal concerning 12 NYCRR 23-2.2 (a), stating that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because the Court of Appeals had previously reversed a similar precedent regarding the applicability of this section to incomplete forms.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodePlywood InjuryConcrete WorkFlooring RequirementsAppellate DecisionPrima Facie Entitlement
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferreira v. Village of Kings Point

A plaintiff was injured when a trench collapsed during water main repairs. He initiated an action against the Village of Kings Point and Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to the Village on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, ruling that trench collapses are not within its ambit. However, the court erred by granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the Industrial Code provisions 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 and 23-4.4, relied upon by the plaintiff, were deemed sufficiently specific to support the claim. The case examines owner liability under Labor Law and the specificity required for Industrial Code violations.

Trench collapseLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4.2Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4.4Owner liabilitySummary judgmentNondelegable dutyConstruction site accidentExcavation safety
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04903 [151 AD3d 568]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2017

Willis v. Plaza Construction Corp.

This case involves Noel Willis, a respondent, against Plaza Construction Corp. et al., appellants, concerning a construction accident where a hose pouring liquid cement burst. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common-law negligence claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, granting summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence claim, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.10 (b) (2) and 23-4.2 (k). The court found no evidence that defendants controlled or supervised plaintiff's work methods, only general worksite safety, which is insufficient for liability under these claims. However, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.8 (a) and (c) (4) was sustained due to a question of fact regarding the provision and use of proper eye protection, thus warranting a partial affirmation of the lower court's decision.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodeEye ProtectionMeans and MethodsSupervisory AuthorityAppellate Division
References
5
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. 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

Becerra v. Promenade Apartments Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge DeGrasse argues against the majority's implicit finding of liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), which was predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5 (c) (3). The plaintiff, a demolition worker, was injured by an angle grinder lacking a guard. Judge DeGrasse contends that Industrial Code § 23-1.5 (c) (3) is a general safety standard and does not specifically mandate guarding for grinders, unlike saws which are explicitly covered in § 23-1.12 (c) (1). Applying statutory construction principles, the dissent concludes that the omission of grinder guarding requirements in the Industrial Code signifies an intentional exclusion, thus precluding liability under the invoked provision.

Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(1)Angle Grinder InjuryDemolition WorkerStatutory InterpretationRegulatory InterpretationSafety Device RequirementsMachinery GuardingDissenting Opinion
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2000

Penta v. Related Companies

Vincenzo Penta, a carpenter, was injured when struck by a crane hook on the 17th floor of a building under construction. Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code regulations 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and 23-8.2 (c) (3). The Supreme Court initially found a question of fact regarding 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i), but the Appellate Division determined this regulation was inapplicable as a crane hook is not a 'moving part' requiring guards. The court agreed that 12 NYCRR 23-8.2 (c) (3) was not applicable since the crane was not hoisting a load at the time of the accident. However, the Supreme Court properly denied dismissal of the common-law negligence claim under Labor Law § 200, as defendants failed to establish prima facie that they did not supervise or control the crane's operation. The order was modified to grant dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentCrane InjuryIndustrial Code ViolationsLabor Law Section 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law Section 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 11,556 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