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

Region v. W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding the electrocution death of a construction worker and the application of Labor Law § 240. The decedent, Grover J. Region, an ironworker employed by McBrearity's Metal Building Erectors, was fatally injured on November 18, 1982, when a crane cable he was helping to operate came into contact with high tension electric lines at a construction site in Ulster County. The plaintiff, administratrix of the decedent's estate, filed a lawsuit against property owner William J. Woodward and contractor W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc., among others, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide proper safety measures for crane operation near electrical hazards. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against Woodward and Woodward Construction, who subsequently appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that the defendants had violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to implement necessary safety precautions for the crane, which was being used as a hoist, thereby incurring absolute liability for the injuries proximately caused.

ElectrocutionConstruction AccidentCrane OperationLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityWorker SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
9
Case No. CA 12-00504
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

MILLER, DEBRA J. v. SAVARINO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Plaintiff Debra J. Miller commenced a personal injury and wrongful death action after her decedent suffered a fatal heart attack at a building allegedly owned by defendant 26 Mississippi Street LLC, undergoing renovation. Defendant Savarino Construction Corporation was the construction manager. The decedent suffered a heart attack after ascending five flights of stairs to attach a temporary heat cannon. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that 26 Mississippi did not own the building at the relevant times and Savarino Construction had no control over the work or premises. The court also dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action due to plaintiff's failure to allege a violation of a qualifying Industrial Code provision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Premises LiabilityOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montalvo v. J. Petrocelli Construction, Inc.

Plaintiff Rene Montalvo, a sheet metal journeyman, was injured while working on a construction project when a plenum he was holding came loose and caused his unsecured A-frame ladder to shake, resulting in a dislocated shoulder and torn rotator cuff. He sued the general contractor, J. Petrocelli Construction, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, by treating it as a "falling object" case and finding no failure to provide adequate safety devices. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the plaintiff's injuries stemmed from the defendant's failure to properly secure the ladder, a direct violation of Labor Law § 240(1), and awarded partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on this claim. The appellate court also reinstated the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, finding a triable issue of fact regarding a violation of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b)(4)(iv), thus denying the defendant's motion to dismiss this claim.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Ladder SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseFalling Object DoctrinePersonal InjuryWorker SafetyGeneral Contractor Liability
References
13
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 01555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2016

Lois v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC

Plaintiff Jorge Lois, an employee of J&R Glassworks, Inc., sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC and Bass Associates, LLC, after slipping and falling on a plastic tarp and broken concrete at a construction site. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss Lois's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and their contractual indemnification claim against J&R. The court denied both motions, finding issues of fact regarding Bass Associates' role as an owner, the defendants' responsibility for the hazardous condition, and the applicability of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2). Additionally, J&R failed to demonstrate an absence of factual issues concerning its notice of the hazardous condition, thereby upholding the contractual indemnification claim against it.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSlip and FallThird-Party ActionOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityHazardous Condition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1982

Claim of Fabrizio v. J. R. J. Concrete Corp.

Claimant, a construction foreman, sustained injuries in 1976 while employed by J. R. J. Concrete Corporation and was subsequently awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed the award amount, contending that the claimant had intentionally limited his income after the injury to continue receiving Social Security benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board concluded that the claimant did not limit his income. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the board's determination regarding factual questions and credibility, thus affirming the decision.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsSocial Security BenefitsAccidental DisabilityCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConstruction ForemanInjury ClaimBoard Determination
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02068
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

Ging v. F.J. Sciame Constr. Co., Inc.

This personal injury action concerns Albert Ging's accident at a construction site in Brooklyn while employed by Atlantic Detail & Erection Corp., a sub-subcontractor. Ging fell from a steel tube but prevented a full fall, subsequently claiming liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Ging partial summary judgment against the construction manager, F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc., and also awarded Sciame conditional contractual indemnification against Koenig Iron Works, Inc., the structural steel subcontractor. Furthermore, Koenig was awarded conditional contractual indemnification against Atlantic. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed these orders, finding Ging's testimony established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and that the defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding the accident's occurrence. The court also upheld the conditional contractual indemnification awards based on the specific contract language and the antisubrogation rule.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentFall from HeightStructural SteelSubcontractor Liability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruane v. Allen-Stevenson School

In August 2005, plaintiff Edward Ruane, a sheet metal worker, suffered a knee injury from a slip and fall on construction debris. He sued The Allen-Stevenson School (owner) and F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc. and Sciame Development, Inc. (general contractors) for personal injury. F.J. Sciame filed a third-party action against Ruane's employer, Met Sales & Installations Corp., seeking indemnification based on an unsigned rider, which Met disputed. The court ruled that F.J. Sciame failed to provide prima facie evidence that the indemnification rider was part of the contract, denying their claim. Additionally, the motion court found that factual disputes regarding constructive notice prevented the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

personal injuryknee injuryconstruction accidentindemnificationgeneral contractor liabilitypremises liabilitycontractual disputesummary judgmentLabor Law 200constructive notice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1997

Pryer v. Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp.

Timothy Pryer, a corrections officer, sustained personal injuries after slipping on sand at the Nassau County Corrections Facility, allegedly due to ongoing construction. He filed a lawsuit against the main contractor, Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp., and a subcontractor, S&L Concrete Construction Corp., under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted summary judgment motions by the defendants, dismissing Pryer's Labor Law causes of action and the third-party defendant's counterclaims. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court concluding that Pryer was not engaged in activities enumerated in Labor Law §§ 240 or 241(6) and was not injured in a construction area, thus precluding his claims and the related counterclaims.

Personal injurySlip and fallConstruction accidentSummary judgmentAppellate reviewLabor LawSubcontractor liabilityCorrections officerThird-party claimDuty of care
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates, LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Urbina, an electrician, sustained severe injuries after falling from a Baker scaffold at a construction site, leading to a fractured patella and multiple surgeries. He and his wife, Lucy Nunez, sued the premises owner, 26 Court Street Associates, LLC, the lessee/general contractor, Town Sports International, Inc. (TSI), and the drywall subcontractor, R & J Construction Corp. (R & J), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court's judgment, awarding substantial damages, was appealed, specifically regarding awards for pain and suffering. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, conditionally reducing the awards for past and future pain and suffering, while affirming the grant of contractual indemnity to TSI and Court Street against R & J, based on R & J's contractual obligation to provide scaffolding.

Construction site injuryScaffolding accidentPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLabor Law § 240(1)Damages modificationPain and suffering awardLost wages awardPatella fractureSubcontractor negligence
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 3,948 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