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. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00133 [190 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Santana v. MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C.

Plaintiff, Juan C. Santana, was injured during demolition work when a ceiling fell and struck him. He brought claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200, alleging violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §§ 23-1.8 (c) and 23-3.3 (c). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Richard Mishkin Contracting Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding issues of fact regarding the provision of safety hats and ongoing inspections. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against MMF 1212 Assoc L.L.C. and Finkelstein Timberger East Real Estate LLC, as plaintiff did not oppose and they lacked control over the work. Finally, Mishkin's cross-claims for common-law contribution and indemnification were not dismissed due to conflicting expert opinions on the gravity of plaintiff's brain injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Demolition AccidentFalling ObjectsConstruction SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContribution ClaimIndemnification ClaimWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03321
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Jackson v. Hunter Roberts Constr., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Robert Jackson sustained personal injuries after tripping and falling on a plywood ramp at a construction site while working as a plumber. He brought claims against the owner, Hunter Roberts Construction, L.L.C., and the general contractor, Bronx Parking Development Company, L.L.C., under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying the defendants' motion and reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved triable issues of fact concerning constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactPlywood Ramp
References
4
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06780 [121 AD3d 450]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2014

Arner v. RREEF America, L.L.C.

Plaintiff Andrew Arner initiated an action to recover for injuries sustained after allegedly tripping and falling on a Masonite board in a building undergoing construction. The building owners and managers, RREEF America, L.L.C., et al., filed a third-party complaint against several contractors, seeking contractual and common law indemnification, contribution, and alleging failure to procure insurance. Third-party defendants Coda Interiors and Adelphi Restoration Corp. moved for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting Adelphi's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance. The court found that Adelphi had procured the required insurance, and the remaining appeals were otherwise affirmed.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon Law IndemnificationContributionBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03972 [240 AD3d 409]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Matter of K.J.L. v. C. L.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court decision that terminated a mother's parental rights due to permanent neglect. The children, K.J.L. and another, had been in foster care for over three years, and their foster parents wished to adopt them. The mother, C.L., failed to complete her service plan, which included substance abuse and mental health treatment. The court found that termination was in the children's best interests, rejecting a suspended judgment due to the mother's unresolved difficulties. The wishes of the older child to return to the mother were noted but not legally binding as the child is under 14.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationBest Interests of ChildrenFoster CareService Plan FailureSubstance Abuse TreatmentMental Health TreatmentSpecial Needs ChildrenSuspended JudgmentAdoption Proceedings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2000

Heras v. P.S. 71 Associates, L. L. C.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff, a general laborer, was injured at a building construction site. The plaintiff sued P.S. 71 Associates, L. L. C., the owner and general contractor, and GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp., a subcontractor. P.S. 71 moved for summary judgment, claiming the plaintiff was its employee and thus barred from suing under Workers’ Compensation Law. GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp. also moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not hired until after the accident. The Supreme Court granted P.S. 71's motion and denied GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp.'s motion. On appeal, the order was reversed; P.S. 71's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the complaint against it reinstated, while GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp.'s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityWorkers Compensation DefenseRespondeat SuperiorTriable Issue of FactEvidentiary Proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cassidy v. Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc.

A laborer, referred to as the plaintiff, sustained neck and back injuries after falling from a temporary loading dock when its safety railing detached. The incident occurred at a construction site owned by Midtown West A.L.L.C. and general contracted by Rockrose GC MWA L.L.C., with the loading dock installed by Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. The motion court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) claims, holding the owner and general contractor liable for the failure of the elevated platform designed to protect from gravity-related hazards. However, the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law § 241 (6), Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence were dismissed due to the loading dock being classified as a platform, not a scaffold, and a lack of evidence regarding notice of an improperly reattached rail. The appellate court affirmed these rulings, also declining to consider a new argument raised by the defendants on appeal.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentElevated PlatformSafety RailGravity-Related HazardIndustrial Code § 23-1.22(c)(2)NegligenceSite Safety Expert
References
5
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2000

Lantry v. Parkway Plaza, L. L. C.

Plaintiff, an iron worker, sustained severe injuries after falling approximately 20 feet during construction when a roof joist rolled and slipped while hoisting steel decking. Plaintiff initiated legal action, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants appealed, asserting the recalcitrant worker defense and claiming factual disputes regarding the provision of proper protection and the plaintiff's alleged refusal to use safety equipment. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no genuine issues of material fact to support the recalcitrant worker defense, as there was no evidence that the plaintiff refused to use available safety devices or was ever instructed to do so.

Iron Worker InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationSummary JudgmentRecalcitrant Worker DefenseWorker SafetyFall from HeightAppellate AffirmationStatutory LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Molyneux v. Arthur Guinness & Sons, P.L.C.

Plaintiff John B. Molyneux commenced this action against defendant Arthur Guinness and Sons, P.L.C. (AGS) seeking severance pay, alleging violations of ERISA and breach of contract, following AGS's sale of a subsidiary where Molyneux was employed. AGS moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court dismissed the complaint, finding no federal question jurisdiction under ERISA, as Molyneux failed to demonstrate a qualifying 'plan' and because the alleged plan would primarily benefit non-resident aliens, thus falling outside ERISA's scope. Additionally, the court declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the contract claim due to the involvement of British law, witnesses, and events. The court further concluded that the complaint failed to state an ERISA claim, as it did not allege arbitrary, fraudulent, or bad-faith actions by AGS in denying benefits.

ERISASeverance PayBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionEmployee BenefitsSubsidiary SaleFiduciary DutyNon-Resident Aliens
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 3,602 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