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. 2021 NY Slip Op 02391 [193 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2021

Matter of Zamir F. (Ricardo B.)

The Administration for Children's Services appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which had dismissed petitions alleging that Ricardo B. neglected Zamir F. through sexual abuse and derivatively neglected his other children, Elijah B., Jordan B., Jeremiah B., and Messiah B. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order. It found that the petitioner had sufficiently established neglect and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that the testimony of the petitioner's child sexual abuse expert reliably corroborated Zamir's out-of-court statements. The court also determined that the Family Court had erred in its credibility assessment, particularly in preferring the father's expert's testimony. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and the issuance of a dispositional order.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of Child StatementsExpert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewParental DutiesRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. 156167/22
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2026

Altamirano v. Frick Collection

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff Segundo Altamirano's motion for summary judgment on claims under Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6), predicated on Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) and 23-1.22(b)(3). The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this order. The case involved the plaintiff falling into a six-foot deep trench after tripping over a cart on a ramp that lacked guardrails, which spanned a two-foot height differential between two buildings. The court found that the ramp was a safety device that failed to prevent the fall, establishing a valid claim under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the arguments regarding the Labor Law § 241(6) claim became academic.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeRamp AccidentFall from HeightConstruction Site SafetyGuardrail FailureTrench FallAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The petitioner sought a preliminary injunction against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, for alleged recognitional or organizational picketing. This picketing was asserted to be in violation of section 10(1) and section 158(b)(7)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. The employer, Genmar Electrical Contracting, had recently recognized United Construction Trades & Industrial Employees International Union (UCTIU) as the lawful representative of its employees. The Court found reasonable cause to believe that Local Union No. 3's picketing aimed to force Genmar to recognize their union or compel employees to switch their affiliation, constituting an unfair labor practice. Concluding that injunctive relief was just and proper, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, enjoining Local Union No. 3 from such picketing.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticePicketingNational Labor Relations ActOrganizational PicketingRecognitional PicketingCollective BargainingUnion RepresentationSection 10(l)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. 225 East 57th Street Owners, Inc.

Plaintiff Carlos Garcia, a laborer, was injured on January 16, 2007, while removing mirrored wall panels for JMPB Enterprises, LLC, at a cooperative apartment building owned by the defendant in Manhattan. He was injured when a panel broke and cut his hand. Garcia sued, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The motion court dismissed most claims but allowed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (b) (3) and (c) to proceed. The appellate court reversed, dismissing the remaining § 241 (6) claim, holding that the Industrial Code provisions relied upon were inapplicable because the injury resulted from the deliberate performance of work, not from structural instability caused by the progress of demolition work, which the codes are designed to address. The court clarified that the breaking of the mirror was not a hazard contemplated by the cited Industrial Code provisions.

Personal InjuryLabor LawIndustrial CodeDemolition WorkStructural IntegrityHazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyMirror Removal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1998

O'Connor v. Lincoln Metrocenter Partners, L.P.

Plaintiff, an employee of S&A Concrete Co., suffered an injury on January 3, 1994, when he fell into an uncovered floor opening at a construction site while stripping forms. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied defendant-appellant R&J Construction Corp.'s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, R&J Construction Corp. contended that the plaintiff was not engaged in gravity-related work covered by Labor Law § 240 (1), but the appellate court affirmed, finding the plaintiff was protected as a person employed in the erection of a building. The court further determined that R&J, as an agent of the general contractor Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., had the duty to cover floor openings and was thus liable under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200. The appellate court also affirmed the lower court's effective grant of a motion to amend pleadings, allowing the plaintiff to assert specific Industrial Code violations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i) and 23-2.4 (b) (1) (i)). An appeal from a subsequent order denying reargument was dismissed as nonappealable.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentGravity-Related RiskFloor Opening SafetyContractor LiabilityAgent LiabilityIndustrial Code
References
9
Case No. ADJ17388371
Regular
Sep 25, 2025

Doug McCullough vs. Modesto Fire Department, Salida Fire Protection Department District

The defendant, Modesto Fire Department, sought reconsideration of a June 12, 2025, Findings of Fact and Order which imposed two penalties on them for unreasonably delayed benefits to the applicant under Labor Code Section 5814.3. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's report. The Board concluded that the defendant had sufficient information to apply the presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code Section 3212.1 and unreasonably denied both inter vivos and death claims, thereby warranting the penalties. The decision also noted a failure to provide accurate notice of case transmission to the Appeals Board as required by Labor Code section 5909(b)(1).

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909TransmissionSixty-Day PeriodNotice of TransmissionElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Report and RecommendationFindings of Fact and OrderLabor Code Section 5814.3
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 1947

Douds v. Wine, Liquor & Distillery Workers Union, Local 1

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for injunctive relief against Local 1, alleging violations of Section 8(b), subsection (4)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition was based on charges filed by Schenley Distillers Corporation and Jardine Liquor Corporation. A temporary restraining order was initially granted on December 11, 1947, after a hearing. However, upon further hearing on December 16, 1947, the court found a significant change in the factual situation, noting that the labor difficulties had been adjusted and the danger of irreparable damage was no longer present. Consequently, the court vacated the temporary restraining order, stating that it would not pass upon the ultimate merits of the issues at that time.

Injunctive ReliefLabor RelationsNational Labor Relations ActTemporary Restraining OrderVacated OrderUnfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottLabor DisputeFederal CourtDistrict Court
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2001

Rice v. Board of Education

A plaintiff, a steel worker employed by Atlas Gem Erectors (subcontractor), suffered personal injuries after his leg fell into a hole in a flatbed truck while working at a site managed by Turner Construction Co., Inc. (general contractor). The action initially involved claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), with the latter citing Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (b) regarding "hazardous openings". The trial court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but allowed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim to proceed, leading to a jury verdict finding Turner 100% at fault for the accident. On appeal, the judgment was reversed; the court ruled that Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (b) was inapplicable because the hole was not large enough for the plaintiff to completely fall through. Furthermore, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, clarifying that unloading a truck does not constitute an elevation-related risk under the statute, and consequently, the complaint and third-party complaint were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeHazardous OpeningElevation-Related RiskAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDamages ReductionCPLR 4404
References
9
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03700
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Cabrera v. Provident Alpine Partners, L.P.

The plaintiffs, Luis Cabrera and his wife, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning personal injuries Luis Cabrera sustained from falling off an A-frame ladder while performing demolition work. The Supreme Court had denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order by denying the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law claims, while affirming the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The court found triable issues of fact regarding whether Cabrera needed protection from gravity and if his actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, it clarified the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 241 (6) and highlighted the defendant's failure to demonstrate prima facie compliance with specific Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-1.21 [b] [3] [iv] and [4] [ii]).

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationNondelegable DutyProximate Cause
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 10,798 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