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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2012

Kuntz v. WNYG Housing Development Fund Co.

This case concerns a plaintiff's appeal from a denial of partial summary judgment in a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. The plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold at a construction site. The core issue revolves around whether the defendants provided adequate safety devices under Labor Law § 240 (1) and if the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the fall. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion and the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that there were triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of safety devices and whether the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the injuries.

scaffolding accidentLabor Lawsummary judgmentliabilitysafety devicesconstruction siteproximate causeappellate reviewpersonal injuryfall from height
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alibrandi Building Systems, Inc. v. Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co.

This case concerns an appeal stemming from a Lien Law article 3-A lien foreclosure action. Defendants, comprised of various Iron Workers' Funds and Union entities, brought cross-claims against codefendants Wm. C. Pahl Construction Co., Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, and A & J Steel Erectors, seeking unpaid fringe benefits and union dues. Pahl and Fidelity appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss these cross-claims. The appellate court modified the order, striking demands for liquidated damages across all cross-claims and specific interest demands in one, but otherwise affirmed, ruling that ERISA did not preempt these remedial claims. The decision clarified that while principal sums and interest were recoverable under various lien and finance laws, liquidated damages were not.

Lien LawERISAState Finance LawPublic ImprovementMechanics LiensUnpaid BenefitsUnion DuesLiquidated DamagesContract ActionPayment Bond
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 1999

Taylor v. V.A.W. of America, Inc.

Scott Taylor, an employee of Vanguard, Inc. and Vanguard Organization, Inc., suffered personal injuries when he fell through a roof owned by V.A.W. of America, Inc. while performing repairs, having been supplied no safety devices. Taylor initially moved for partial summary judgment against VAW under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied, as was VAW's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Vanguard. On appeal, the court reversed the prior order, granting Taylor's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and VAW's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Vanguard, concluding that VAW failed to provide required safety devices and was entitled to indemnification.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteScaffold LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernardo v. Melville Industrial Associates

The plaintiffs, led by Stephen J. Bernardo, appealed an order denying their motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and on the affirmative defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Bernardo was injured after falling from a defective ladder provided by the defendant, Melville Industrial Associates. The Supreme Court denied their motion, but the Appellate Division reversed the order. The Appellate Division found that the plaintiffs established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and that Melville failed to present sufficient counter-evidence. Additionally, the court determined that the injured plaintiff was employed by Dachlar Management Corporation, a separate legal entity, making the Workers’ Compensation Law defense inapplicable to Melville.

Personal InjuryLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentLadder AccidentAbsolute LiabilityEmployer LiabilityCorporate VeilAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityPrima Facie Violation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2011

De Oleo v. Charis Christian Ministries, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff sought recovery for injuries sustained during construction work at a building owned by Charis, whose employer was St. Loren Construction Corp. Charis, the defendants/third-party plaintiffs, moved for a default judgment on their third-party claims for common-law and contractual indemnification and contribution against St. Loren, the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting the motion as to the claim for common-law indemnification, while otherwise affirming. The appellate court found Charis provided sufficient proof of St. Loren's negligence and their own lack of negligence. It was also noted that Charis did not need to disprove Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, as it must be pleaded as an affirmative defense.

common-law indemnificationcontractual indemnificationcontributiondefault judgmentconstruction injuryemployer negligenceaffirmative defenseappellate reviewmotion practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2012

Vasquez v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Theresa Vasquez brought this action against defendant Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation after her husband, David Vasquez, died during the course of his employment at a building managed by defendant. David Vasquez fell to his death from an exhaust duct after climbing out of a scissor lift while attempting to replace ceiling tiles. The plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide proper safety devices. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim and also moved for summary judgment arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the order was modified to grant plaintiff conditional partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provision, citing outstanding questions of fact regarding defendant's status as a special employer.

Labor LawScissor Lift AccidentFall from HeightWorksite SafetySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmployerStrict LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Devices
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Andrews v. Northwest Auto Mall

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, in a personal injury action. The original order had partially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The plaintiff sustained injuries from a fall off a defective ladder while installing a security system, alleging Labor Law and common-law negligence. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that plaintiff was engaged in 'altering' a building under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that defendants violated this section by providing a defective ladder, which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawAltering a BuildingDefective EquipmentProximate CauseAppellate AffirmationCommon-Law NegligenceNew York Appellate Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Munson Transportation, Inc.

This case addresses a conflict of laws issue in a wrongful death and pain and suffering action stemming from a truck accident in New York. Third-party defendants, Fuchs, Inc. (employer) and William Shaulis (co-employee), sought to dismiss a third-party complaint, arguing that Wisconsin law, their domicile, should apply, which bars actions for indemnification or contribution against employers providing workers' compensation. Conversely, the third-party plaintiffs contended that New York law, which permits such actions, should govern. The Court, applying New York's choice of law 'interest analysis,' concluded that New York had the most significant interest in regulating conduct on its highways, deeming its rule allowing contribution and indemnification as 'conduct regulating.' Consequently, the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was denied, affirming the application of New York law.

Conflict of LawsChoice of LawThird-Party ComplaintIndemnificationContributionWorkers' CompensationFederal Diversity JurisdictionTort LawWrongful DeathMotor Vehicle Accident
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonilla v. State

Claimant, injured while sandblasting a bridge beam, appealed an order from the Court of Claims regarding his Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) claims. The Court of Claims had denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss that claim, concluding no elevation-related risk. The appellate court modified this order, ruling that the claimant's work did expose him to an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for failing to provide proper safety devices. However, the appellate court found that neither party had made a prima facie showing for summary judgment or dismissal on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. This was due to unresolved factual issues concerning whether the claimant could have affixed his lanyard to a standing object as a proper safety measure, or if the lanyard itself failed to provide proper protection, thereby leaving the question of proximate cause open.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentProximate CauseWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewBridge ConstructionSafety EquipmentAbsolute Liability
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 17,841 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