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
Dec 28, 1996

People v. Vasquez

This opinion addresses three consolidated appeals (*People v. Vasquez*, *People v. Dalton*, *People v. Adkinson*) concerning the admissibility of hearsay statements from 911 calls under the "present sense impression" and "excited utterance" exceptions. The Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for present sense impressions, emphasizing strict contemporaneity and independent corroboration, and found these criteria were not met in the offers of proof. Specifically, in Vasquez, the 911 call was excluded due to insufficient corroboration, while Dalton's and Adkinson's 911 statements were inadmissible for lacking contemporaneity. The Court affirmed the convictions in Vasquez and Dalton, and modified Adkinson's sentence regarding consecutive counts while otherwise affirming the conviction.

Hearsay RulePresent Sense ImpressionExcited Utterance911 CallsEvidentiary LawCriminal AppealsCorroboration RequirementContemporaneity PrincipleSentencing ModificationIdentification Testimony
References
20
Case No. CA 10-02273
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2011

MAZURETT, JUAN v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The plaintiffs, Juan Mazurett and Theresa Mazurett, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against the Rochester City School District after Juan Mazurett was injured in a fall from a collapsing scaffold at a construction site. The accident occurred while he was attempting to climb the scaffold provided by his employer, the general contractor. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially denied the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the scaffold's collapse. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, finding no evidence that the plaintiff refused to use available safety devices.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law ViolationConstruction Site SafetyProximate CauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyStatutory DutyNew York Law
References
11
Case No. CV-24-0601
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Duta-Zumba

In July 2022, claimant Juan Duta-Zumba filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained in a ladder fall while working for Level 5 Carpentry. The employer and its carrier, Urban Atelier Group, LLC and SiriusPoint America Insurance, controverted the claim, disputing employment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited claimant's testimony, establishing Level 5 Carpentry as the employer and confirming work-related injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The carrier appealed, contending the accident was unwitnessed and their due process rights were violated. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's findings regarding the accident and injuries, and that the carrier received adequate due process.

Workers' CompensationLadder FallWork-Related InjuryCredibility DeterminationDue ProcessStatutory PresumptionAppellate ReviewEmployment DisputeMedical EvidenceThird Judicial Department
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00519
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2024

Vasquez v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.

Plaintiff Nidia Vasquez suffered severe injuries at a construction site when a 32-foot ladder fell, leading to a lawsuit against Gilbane Building Company et al. alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and a jury subsequently awarded her approximately $2.3 million for cervical spine and rotator cuff injuries, including significant future pain and suffering and lost earnings. Defendants appealed, contending that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable as the ladder was not in use, and arguing that plaintiff's actions constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to falling objects requiring securing regardless of use, rejected the sole proximate cause argument as speculative, and found the jury's damages award reasonable.

Construction Site AccidentFalling Ladder InjuryLabor Law Section 240(1)Absolute LiabilityElevation-Related HazardSummary JudgmentDamages AwardFuture Pain and SufferingLost EarningsAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. 532665
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christian Vasquez

Christian Vasquez, a demolition worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after injuring his left ankle from a fall off a ladder at work. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing a prior soccer injury and discrepancies in testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board found a work-related injury and awarded benefits, upholding the statutory presumption for unwitnessed accidents and crediting the claimant's testimony. The Board also relied on medical opinions that the severe Achilles tendon rupture could not have been sustained prior to the work incident given the claimant's ability to work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings supported by substantial evidence and its credibility determinations reasonable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryLeft Ankle InjuryLadder FallDemolition WorkUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
9
Case No. 533094
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Bidot

Juan A. Bidot, a probation officer, filed an occupational disease claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging he developed posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression due to prolonged exposure to sex offenders. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim because Bidot failed to demonstrate that his psychological stress was greater than that experienced by similarly situated officers. Bidot appealed the Board's denial of his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as Bidot failed to present newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition.

Occupational DiseasePosttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental HealthWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationBoard ReviewProbation Officer
References
9
Case No. 532061
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Abad

Claimant Juan Abad, a general employee of Vanety's Service, LLC and special employee of ACME Furniture, sustained injuries from a fall and filed for workers' compensation benefits. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found Vanety's 100% liable. The Workers' Compensation Board later modified this decision, establishing a general/special employment relationship and equally apportioning liability between Vanety's and ACME. ACME appealed, contesting the apportionment and alleging a denial of due process. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding the apportionment to be within the Board's discretion and the due process claim to be unsubstantiated by the record.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsGeneral/Special EmploymentLiability ApportionmentStaffing AgencyAppellate DivisionDue ProcessBoard Decision ModificationCarrier AppealInjuryLadder Fall
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03489
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2023

Ramones v. 425 County Rd., LLC

Plaintiff Sandro Ramones appealed an order denying his summary judgment motion and granting summary judgment to defendants 425 County Road, LLC, and Farrell Building Company, Inc., regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) violations. The plaintiff was injured while loading equipment onto a van after performing roofing and shingling work. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirming the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on that claim. The court found that the plaintiff's activity was ancillary to the alteration of the structure and protected under Labor Law § 240 (1), and defendants failed to show no safety device would have prevented the fall. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (f) did not apply as the van's roof was not a "working level above ground."

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyElevation RisksScaffolding AccidentsWorker FallStatutory InterpretationAncillary Work
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03297 [205 AD3d 1250]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Matter of Vasquez v. Northstar Constr. Group Servs. Inc.

Claimant, Christian Vasquez, sought workers' compensation benefits for a left ankle injury sustained after slipping and falling from a ladder at work. The Workers' Compensation Board found that claimant sustained a work-related injury and upheld the award of benefits, applying the presumption that an unwitnessed accident occurring in the course of employment also arises out of that employment. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing claimant's prior ankle injury and non-disclosure undermined medical opinions and the Board's findings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding its findings were supported by substantial evidence and the Board's credibility determinations regarding claimant's testimony and medical evidence were valid.

Workers' CompensationAnkle InjuryLadder FallAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentStatutory PresumptionCredibility DeterminationMedical OpinionCausal Relationship
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04842 [129 AD3d 828]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2015

Vasquez-Roldan v. Two Little Red Hens, Ltd.

Doroteo Vasquez-Roldan, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from a scaffold lacking safety rails while removing pipes during a renovation. He initiated a consolidated action against BSH, LLC, the premises owner, and Two Little Red Hens, Ltd., the lessee, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the inadequate safety devices, and the defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact regarding sole proximate cause. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability was granted.

Scaffold accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary judgmentAppellate reversalWorker safetyElevated work siteProximate causeNondelegable dutyPremises liability
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 428 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