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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03497 [206 AD3d 620]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2022

Everett v. CMI Servs. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ron Everett, sustained personal injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated water and feces in an employee break room at his workplace. Defendants, including CMI Services Corp., Omni New York, LLC, and Plaza Residences, LLP, moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses such as inherent job hazard, open and obvious condition, and employer protection under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was not engaged in his cleaning duties at the time of the fall, the dangerous condition was not proven to be non-inherently dangerous despite being open and obvious (due to hidden feces), and the defendants failed to establish an alter ego or special employer relationship to invoke Workers' Compensation Law immunity. The court concluded that the defendants did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law NegligenceOpen and Obvious ConditionInherent Job HazardWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Alter Ego DoctrineSpecial EmployerAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00720 [202 AD3d 433]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Galeno v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Fidel Galeno was injured in December 2012 after falling through a sidewalk shed roof while performing façade repairs on a building. The building was owned by Elk 22 Realty LLC, net leased to 20 West, and managed by ABS Partners Real Estate, LLC (collectively, the owner defendants). Everest Scaffolding, Inc. constructed the sidewalk shed, and Schnelbacher-Sendon Group, LLC (SSG) was hired for façade repairs, subcontracting work to Ramon Construction Corporation (Ramon), plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court denied conditional summary judgment for the owner defendants on contractual indemnification against SSG and Ramon, and granted SSG's and Ramon's motions for summary judgment dismissing contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification/contribution claims. The Supreme Court also denied Everest's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, granted dismissal of contractual indemnification claims against Everest by 20 West and ABS, and denied the owner defendants' cross-motion for conditional summary judgment against Everest. The Appellate Division modified the orders, denying SSG's, Ramon's, and Everest's motions to the extent they sought dismissal of 20 West and ABS's contractual indemnification claims against them, and otherwise affirmed. Issues of fact concerning proximate cause by Everest or Ramon remain, precluding dismissal of negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Everest. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against SSG were properly dismissed due to lack of negligence or supervision by SSG, while similar claims against Ramon were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySidewalk Shed AccidentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewProximate CauseConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07909 [155 AD3d 1208]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2017

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc.

Plaintiff, a self-insured trust, commenced a collection action against defendant, a former member, for unpaid assessments related to workers' compensation claims. Defendant counterclaimed and filed a third-party action against Cool Insuring Agency, the trust's administrators, alleging mismanagement. During discovery, a dispute arose over a report commissioned by defendant's counsel from a consultant, which Cool and plaintiff sought to compel. Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Supreme Court partially granted the motions to compel, a decision largely affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department, with a modification regarding a specific email exchange found to be protected attorney work product.

Discovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeAttorney Work ProductMaterial Prepared for LitigationSelf-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentThird-Party ActionClaims Administration
References
20
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04809 [140 AD3d 532]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Masi v. Cassone Trailer & Container Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied motions for summary judgment by defendant Cassone Leasing Inc. and third-party defendant LKQ Hunts Point Auto Parts Corp. The case involved Anthony Masi's personal injury claims against various defendants, including Cassone Trailer & Container Co. and Cassone Leasing Inc. The court clarified that a prior settlement agreement under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, entered into by Masi and his employer LKQ, only settled workers' compensation claims and did not release personal injury claims against other defendants. Furthermore, a subsequent broad release agreement between Masi and LKQ released claims solely in favor of LKQ, not extending to other defendants in the personal injury suit. The court did not address whether the release barred third-party actions against LKQ, as that issue was not raised below.

Summary judgmentPersonal injury claimsWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement agreementRelease agreementThird-party actionsAppellate reviewDismissal motionScope of releaseEmployer liability
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00890
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Sanchez v. BBL Constr. Servs., LLC

Plaintiff Jose W. Sanchez, an employee of D&J Concrete Corp., allegedly sustained injuries at a construction site in Rockland County after tripping over a protruding drain pipe while pouring concrete. He initiated a personal injury action against the property owners (CRH Realty IX, LLC, and Crystal Run Healthcare, LLP), the general contractor (BBL Construction Services, LLC), and the plumbing subcontractor (Joe Lombardo Plumbing & Heating of Rockland, Inc.), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment submitted by the defendants and third-party defendant D&J, prompting an appeal. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order. It ruled that the defendants successfully demonstrated that the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious, not inherently dangerous, and that they lacked authority to supervise the plaintiff's work, thereby dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Additionally, the court found the Industrial Code provision (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (2) cited for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim inapplicable, as the pipe was considered an integral and permanent part of the ongoing construction. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment dismissing all causes of action were granted.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentCommon Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeOpen and Obvious HazardInherently Dangerous ConditionSupervisory Authority
References
24
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24048 [3 Misc 3d 347]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc.

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hudson River Construction Co., Inc., Albany Asphalt & Aggregates Corp., and Robert C. Higley. The plaintiff, Carlynann V. Johnson, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Warren D. Johnson, sought damages for the death of Warren D. Johnson, who was crushed by a truck at a construction site. Defendants argued that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 limited their liability to reckless conduct, eliminating a duty of care. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of duty to Johnson as an employee at a construction site and misapplied VTL § 1103, which does not apply to construction workers. The court also found that the defendants failed to establish that Johnson was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligence ActionConstruction Site FatalityWorkplace Safety DutyVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party LiabilityWrongful Death ClaimEmployer ResponsibilityHighway Construction Accident
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05974 [187 AD3d 1099]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2020

Zukowski v. Powell Cove Estates Home Owners Assn., Inc.

This personal injury action concerns Vincent Zukowski, who allegedly slipped and fell on ice at a construction site, claiming common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The defendants, AVR-Powell C. Development Corp. and Powell Cove Associates, LLC, along with third-party defendant A-One Landscape Management, Inc., appealed the denial of their summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting A-One's motion regarding contractual indemnification and failure to procure insurance, and dismissing Jaman Development, LLC's cross-claim for contribution against A-One. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the defendants, citing triable issues of fact regarding their negligence and notice of the dangerous condition under Labor Law § 200 and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d).

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Slipping HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationFailure to Procure InsuranceThird-Party ActionConstruction Site Accident
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03905 [218 AD3d 733]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2023

Cruz v. 451 Lexington Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Johnny Cruz, a laborer, sustained injuries when ductwork fell on him while clearing debris during a building demolition. He initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against 451 Lexington Realty, LLC, and Regent Development Associates, LLC. The defendants initiated a third-party action against City Limits Group, Inc., and City Limits, in turn, sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC. The Supreme Court denied Cruz's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law claims and granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as the ductwork was part of the preexisting structure and not being actively worked on, and Labor Law § 241 (6) inapplicable as the area was not normally exposed to falling objects. Furthermore, Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed because the defendants did not exercise supervision or control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Personal injuryLabor LawSummary judgmentFalling objectConstruction accidentWorkplace safetyDemolitionCommon-law negligenceIndemnificationAppellate review
References
20
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02184 [237 AD3d 891]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

Cianciulli v. Urban Found./Engg., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning personal injuries sustained by Joseph Cianciulli, a project executive, at a construction site in Brooklyn. Cianciulli was allegedly struck by an excavator bucket while inspecting a disputed work area. The original Supreme Court order granted summary judgment dismissing various Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against several defendants and third-party contractual indemnification claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, denying summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) causes of action against the Urban defendants, the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against Bond GC, and the third-party contractual indemnification claims. The court found that triable issues of fact remained regarding the defendants' authority to supervise or control the injury-producing work and their potential negligence.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentExcavation WorkSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilitySafe Place to Work
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 15,501 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