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

Nagel v. D & R REALTY CORP.

Bruce Nagel, an elevator safety inspector, suffered injuries after slipping on oil during a two-year safety test. He and his wife sued D & R Realty Corp., the building owner, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), particularly Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d). The claims under §§ 200 and 240 (1) were withdrawn. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling Nagel's work was routine maintenance, not construction, demolition, or excavation under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Labor Law § 241 (6) protections do not extend to maintenance work outside the construction context.

Elevator accidentLabor LawSection 241(6)Routine maintenanceConstruction workDemolition workExcavation workIndustrial CodeSafety inspectionBuilding owner liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gottlieb v. Kenneth D. Laub & Co.

This case examines whether Labor Law § 198 (1-a), which grants attorney’s fees in wage claims, applies broadly to all wage claims or is restricted to violations of Labor Law article 6. Plaintiff Seymour Gottlieb, a former real estate salesman, sought unpaid commissions from Kenneth D. Laub & Company, asserting a common-law contract claim and a violation of Labor Law § 198. The lower courts awarded attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the attorney’s fees and liquidated damages remedies under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) are exclusively for wage claims based on substantive violations of Labor Law article 6. The Court emphasized that the statute’s plain language, legislative history, and purpose, along with common-law principles against awarding attorney’s fees, limit its applicability to claims arising directly from article 6.

Labour LawWage ClaimAttorney's FeesLiquidated DamagesContract ClaimStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCommon LawArticle 6Employment Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond D Construction Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Public Works

This decision addresses Diamond D Construction Corp.'s motion for reconsideration, challenging the court's prior denial of a preliminary injunction. The court re-evaluates its stance on Eleventh Amendment immunity, concluding that Diamond D's claim for prospective injunctive relief against the Department of Labor's enforcement actions is not barred, distinguishing previous cases like Tekkno and Yorktown. While affirming the applicability of the Younger abstention doctrine, the court acknowledges that a 'narrow' exception for bad faith or harassment by the DOL might apply. To resolve factual disputes regarding whether the DOL acted in bad faith or violated Diamond D's substantive due process rights, the court grants the motion for reconsideration in part and orders evidentiary hearings.

Federal CourtEleventh AmendmentYounger AbstentionDue ProcessProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessMotion for ReconsiderationPreliminary InjunctionState SovereigntyEvidentiary Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
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. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Capuano v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Philip Capuano, a carpenter employed by Donaldson Acoustics, suffered a back injury on February 26, 2007, after slipping on a sprinkler pipe while installing sheetrock at a construction site owned by Yeshiva University. Capuano and his wife subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), specifically citing Industrial Code provisions regarding tripping hazards and inadequate illumination. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) liability. Defendants appealed, questioning the existence of violations and Capuano's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, and defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact.

Labor LawConstruction Site AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentTripping HazardInadequate LightingIndustrial Code ViolationNondelegable DutyWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dugandzic v. New York City School Construction Authority

Mirolsav Dugandzic, a painter, sued multiple defendants, including the NYCSCA, Trataros Construction, and Crowe Construction, after slipping on paint remover at Fort Hamilton High School in 1992. He alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), and Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the accident was due to his work, they lacked notice of a dangerous condition, and no Labor Law violation. The court found the motions timely and dismissed the Labor Law section 241(6) claim, as the Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d) was deemed inapplicable to the plaintiff's self-created slippery condition. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Labor Law section 200 claim against some defendants, citing a factual dispute over supervisory control. The City's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against it due to a lack of evidence of its supervision or control.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetySummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimConstruction Site AccidentSlippery FloorEmployer LiabilitySupervisory ControlHazardous Materials
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwang Ho Kim v. D & W Shin Realty Corp.

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning a personal injury action brought by Kwang Ho Kam and his wife against D & W Shin Realty Corp. and AGP Seafood Corp. (ACP). Kwang Ho Kam sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while performing siding work. The Supreme Court's order dated January 25, 2006, was challenged on multiple grounds, including summary judgment on cross-claims for common-law indemnification and breach of an insurance procurement provision, and dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims. The appellate court modified the original order by granting D & W's motion for summary judgment on the insurance procurement breach claim, reversing the dismissal of D & W's indemnification and insurance breach cross-claims, and denying ACP's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding ACP acted as an "owner." However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 claims against ACP due to lack of supervisory control and upheld the untimeliness of D & W's motion to dismiss Labor Law claims. The order was affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCross-ClaimsIndemnificationInsurance ProcurementBreach of ContractUnsecured LadderWorker Safety
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Telergy Network Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Luc D. Allen, an employee of Marais Trenching, Inc., was seriously injured while repairing a trenching machine on a fiber optic cable project. He and his wife filed an action against Telergy Network Services, Inc. (owner) and Mastec North America, Inc. d/b/a Wilde Construction (general contractor), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as a contractual third-party beneficiary claim. The defendants and third-party defendant Marais Trenching, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the Supreme Court, dismissing all claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs’ claims under Labor Law § 200, § 241 (6), and the third-party beneficiary claim were reviewed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no control by Telergy or Wilde over the repair work, no violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (f), and that the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the highway work permit or the contract between Telergy and Wilde.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentTrenching AccidentConstruction Site SafetyThird-Party Beneficiary ClaimAppellate AffirmationEmployer ResponsibilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityUnsafe Work Condition
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 9,266 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