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
Jul 14, 1981

J. A. R. Management Corp. v. Sweeney

J. A. R. Management Corp. sold an apartment building to J. R. R. Realty Co., allegedly violating a collective bargaining agreement with Local 32B-32J S.E.I.U., AFL-CIO by failing to give notice and ensure the buyer adopted the agreement. The union initiated arbitration against both J. A. R. and J. R. R. and filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against J. R. R. Petitioners J. A. R. and J. R. R. sought to vacate the arbitration notice, arguing NLRB pre-emption. The Supreme Court granted their motion. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the notice to arbitrate was vacated only for J. R. R. Realty Co., while the motion against J. A. R. Management Corp. was denied. Arbitration against J. A. R. is stayed pending the NLRB's resolution of claims against J. R. R., after which arbitration may proceed for any unresolved disputes arising from the collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNLRB Pre-emptionVacate Notice to ArbitrateEmployer-Union DisputeSale of BusinessSuccessor EmployerUnfair Labor PracticesStay of ArbitrationAppellate Review
References
2
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. 2016 NY Slip Op 03815 [139 AD3d 497]
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2016

Mt. Hawley Insurance v. American States Insurance

Mt. Hawley Insurance Company and other plaintiffs, Chatsworth Builders, LLC and 537 West 27th Street Owners, LLC, initiated a declaratory judgment action against J&R Glassworks, Inc. for breach of its obligation to procure insurance related to a construction project. J&R Glassworks, Inc. failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a default judgment. J&R's subsequent motion to vacate this default judgment was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial, clarifying that the default judgment was limited solely to the claim regarding the breach of the obligation to procure insurance, as agreements to indemnify are distinct from agreements to procure insurance.

Default JudgmentVacate DefaultInsurance ObligationBreach of ContractContractual IndemnificationProcure InsuranceAppellate ReviewConstruction ProjectSubcontractorDeclaratory Judgment
References
3
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walls v. Turner Construction Co.

This case concerns an appeal from an order regarding Labor Law claims against Turner Construction Company and Jordan Construction Company. The original order denied summary judgment to Turner for dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on their § 240 (1) claim against Turner, and denied Jordan's motion to amend its answer for a recalcitrant worker defense. It also denied Jordan summary judgment for dismissal of Turner's cross claims for contractual indemnification, contribution, and failure to procure insurance, while granting summary judgment to Turner on that cross claim. The appellate court modified the original order by dismissing Turner's cross claim concerning Jordan's failure to obtain insurance, but otherwise affirmed the order. A dissenting opinion argued that Turner, as construction manager, was not the owner's statutory agent for liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) due to limited authority.

Labor LawStatutory AgentConstruction ManagementContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsFailure to Procure InsuranceAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. CA 12-01554
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

SMITH, PAUL J. v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY

Paul J. Smith, a plaintiff, sued Nestle Purina Petcare Company (Nestle) for injuries sustained after slipping and falling in a grain silo during a construction project. Nestle then initiated a third-party action against E.E. Austin & Son, Inc. (Austin), Smith's employer. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from Nestle and Austin. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Nestle and Austin on Labor Law § 240 (1) and most of § 241 (6) claims, finding the injury unrelated to ladder use and certain regulations inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims, and the contractual indemnification claim between Nestle and Austin due to unresolved factual issues regarding Nestle's negligence.

Labor LawWorkplace InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityNegligenceSlip and FallGrain Silo
References
24
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03164
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2020

Matter of Tineo v. M D R J LLC

Juan Fernandez Tineo, a construction worker, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on the job, including his left index finger and post-concussion headaches. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his claim, finding attachment to the labor market and directing ongoing awards. The employer, M D R J LLC, and its carrier sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) but their application was denied due to incomplete submission, specifically failing to specify when objections were interposed as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing the Board's discretion to deny review for procedural non-compliance, especially when a party is represented by counsel.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewRegulatory ComplianceApplication for ReviewAdministrative ProcedureProcedural DenialBoard DiscretionInjured WorkerLabor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial Disability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

Sean O’Sullivan, a cement and concrete laborer, was injured on October 14, 2000, when he tripped over a pipe at a multistory construction site in Manhattan. The property was owned by 251 East 51st Street Corp., with IDI Construction Company as the general contractor. O'Sullivan's employer, Cosner Construction, was the concrete subcontractor, and Teman Electrical Construction, Inc. was the electrical subcontractor. This document presents a dissenting opinion arguing that while there is no viable claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), questions of fact remain regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which should preclude summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action. The dissent highlights that the pipe, which was permanently embedded in the floor and not barricaded or sufficiently visible, could constitute an unsafe condition. It suggests the owner and general contractor might be liable due to their potential input into the pipe's placement and the general contractor's assigned 'site safety manager'. The dissenting judges would reverse the extent of denying summary judgment for the defendant with respect to the Labor Law § 200 claim and reinstate it.

Construction accidentTrip and fallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceWorkplace safetySummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityProperty owner liabilitySubcontractor responsibility
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 11,503 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