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

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. 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
Jul 12, 2005

Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Plaintiff, a laborer on the Triborough Bridge, fell from a form while attempting to descend and re-ascend it due to the absence of a mechanical manlift. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). A jury found the defendant liable under Labor Law § 200 and found violations of Industrial Code provisions under § 241 (6), but only one, regarding insufficient illumination (12 NYCRR 23-1.30), was found to be a proximate cause. The defendant moved to vacate these verdicts. The Supreme Court set aside the § 241 (6) finding but remanded for a new trial, and denied the motion regarding the § 200 claim. On appeal, the higher court reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to support the illumination violation and that any jury charge errors became irrelevant. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of defendant's supervisory control over plaintiff's work or notice of the dangerous condition, thus dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against the defendant.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightLabor Law 200Labor Law 241 (6)CPLR 4404 (a)Jury VerdictProximate CauseSupervisory ControlNotice of Dangerous ConditionIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.30
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber

The dissenting opinion, authored by Staley, Jr., J., argues against the majority's conclusion that contributory negligence was not a defense to a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) at the time of the accident. The dissent contends that subdivision 6 imposes a duty of reasonable care, not absolute liability, and therefore, contributory negligence should be a valid defense. It reviews legislative history and prior case law, emphasizing that the pre-1969 statute, identical in terms of liability definition to present subdivision 6, allowed contributory negligence as a defense. The dissent also clarifies a previous gratuitous statement by the court regarding contributory negligence in Frattura v Cozzolino Constr. Corp. The final judgment was modified, reversing the dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) and the third-party complaint, ordering a new trial on those matters, and affirming the judgment as modified.

Contributory NegligenceLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityDuty of Reasonable CareConstruction SafetyExcavation WorkDemolition WorkSafe Place to WorkStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2006

Amantia v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

Plaintiff, a subcontractor's worker, sued defendants for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence after falling from a cargo truck while unloading forms. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) and partially denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting defendants' motion in its entirety and dismissing the complaint. It found Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as there was no significant elevation risk, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, based on specific industrial code violations, were also dismissed due to their inapplicability to the facts.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFall from ElevationWorker SafetyNegligenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. ADJ11131264
Regular
Mar 12, 2018

JAMES MCEWAN vs. ONTARIO REIGN, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal of an order denying a change of venue. The defendant sought to move the case from Oxnard to Riverside, citing proximity to the alleged injury site and witness travel distances. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the defendant failed to establish substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and did not adequately support its venue arguments under Labor Code section 5501.5(c). The Board noted that the defendant could refile a petition with sufficient witness information to support a claim of good cause under Labor Code section 5501.6(a).

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWCABLabor Code Section 5501.5Good CauseCumulative TraumaHockey PlayerOntario ReignGallagher BassettRiverside District Office
References
2
Case No. ADJ12088438
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

Sherice Bellamy vs. Ventura County Community College, Keen & Associates

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the prior order denying a change of venue. The Board found that the presiding judge incorrectly applied Labor Code section 5501.5 and that Labor Code section 5501.6, which governs petitions for change of venue, was the relevant statute. Consequently, the case was returned to the presiding judge to address the applicant's petition for change of venue under the proper legal framework. A dissenting opinion argued against removal, stating the applicant did not demonstrate good cause or irreparable harm, and could refile a properly supported venue change petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5Labor Code Section 5501.6Principal Place of BusinessGood CauseSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2005

Portillo v. Roby Anne Development, LLC

The defendant, Rubyanne Development, LLC, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that Rubyanne failed to demonstrate the statute's inapplicability to a falling steel beam. However, the court reversed the decision regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, granting summary judgment to Rubyanne and dismissing that cause of action. This dismissal was based on the finding that the cited Industrial Code provision, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1), was not applicable as there was no evidence the plaintiff's injury occurred in an area normally exposed to falling objects. Furthermore, the court clarified that the Supreme Court had implicitly dismissed the common-law negligence claim by dismissing causes of action premised upon Labor Law § 200 due to the appellant's lack of supervision or control.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentDemolition WorkFalling ObjectsStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyIndustrial CodeNegligence
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03346 [205 AD3d 573]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

Lopez v. Halletts Astoria LLC

Plaintiff, an S&E employee, was injured at a construction site while fixing a misaligned hoist elevator when an adjacent ascending hoist elevator struck his foot. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and specific Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, and granted plaintiff summary judgment on those claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-6.1 (c) (1) and denied plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) (Industrial Code § 23-6.3 (g)) claims. The court found issues of fact regarding whether permitting concurrent hoist operation was a proximate cause of the injury and whether defendant New Line Structures & Development LLC had the authority to control the activity. The decision also affirmed the severance of the third-party action due to inexcusable delay.

Construction accidentHoist elevator injuryPersonal injuryLabor Law claimsIndustrial Code violationsProximate causeSummary judgmentThird-party liabilityAppellate reviewForeseeability of risk
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1985

Kollmer v. Slater Electric, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed her causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) in an action for wrongful death. The decedent, an employee of Delta Wells Inc., was fatally injured by a backhoe on land owned by the defendant, Slater Electric, Inc. The trial court had dismissed the Labor Law claim and ruled an OSHA violation inadmissible. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, holding that Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, irrespective of their control over the worksite, and that the plaintiff's offer of proof established a prima facie case. The court reinstated the plaintiff's causes of action and granted a new trial, but affirmed that the specific OSHA settlement was inadmissible as an admission.

Wrongful DeathLabor Law241(6)Nondelegable DutyConstruction AccidentBackhoe IncidentOSHA RegulationsPrima Facie CaseEvidence AdmissibilityNew Trial Granted
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 8,571 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