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

Randall v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee, was injured after falling from a ladder while performing cable installation work. The incident occurred during the replacement of an outdoor cable filter, which was part of a larger service upgrade involving significant interior structural alterations. Plaintiff initiated an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court determined that the filter replacement was an integral and ancillary part of the overall alteration project, thereby falling under the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability for the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Ladder AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Workplace SafetyStructural AlterationAncillary WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryCable InstallationStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zong Mou Zou v. Hai Ming Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, an owner and employee of Jian Li Construction, Inc., sustained personal injuries after falling 10 to 13 feet due to the collapse of sheet metal decking at a construction site. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Hai Ming Construction Corp., and site owners 62 Maspeth Avenue, LLC, and Danbro, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied. On appeal, the order was reversed on the law. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and that it was a proximate cause of his accident. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff's actions as the sole proximate cause or his status as a recalcitrant worker. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability was granted.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Court DecisionLiability DeterminationProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Portes v. New York State Thruway Authority

The claimant, working on a painting project on a bridge, fell and sustained injuries when a suspension cable broke. He initiated a claim asserting negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Court of Claims initially denied both the claimant's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss other claims. On appeal, the court determined that the claimant had established a prima facie case for Labor Law § 240 (1) liability because the provided safety device failed, and the claimant's actions were not the sole proximate cause of the accident. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting the claimant's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold LawConstruction AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DefenseAppellate ReviewSuspension Cable Failure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1999

Cundy v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Plaintiff, injured in a workplace accident, initiated an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) but dismissed other claims. Defendant and third-party defendant appealed, arguing that the plaintiff's accident did not involve the elevation-related risks covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) because the fall occurred at the same level as the work site. The appellate court agreed, citing precedents that limit the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1) to hazards stemming from a difference in elevation between the work and a lower level. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, denying plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment and granting the defendant's and third-party defendant's motions to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

workplace accidentLabor Lawsummary judgmentelevation-related riskconstruction siteappellate reviewpremises liabilityindustrial injuryfall from heightstatutory interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonilla v. State

Claimant, injured while sandblasting a bridge beam, appealed an order from the Court of Claims regarding his Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) claims. The Court of Claims had denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss that claim, concluding no elevation-related risk. The appellate court modified this order, ruling that the claimant's work did expose him to an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for failing to provide proper safety devices. However, the appellate court found that neither party had made a prima facie showing for summary judgment or dismissal on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. This was due to unresolved factual issues concerning whether the claimant could have affixed his lanyard to a standing object as a proper safety measure, or if the lanyard itself failed to provide proper protection, thereby leaving the question of proximate cause open.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary JudgmentProximate CauseWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewBridge ConstructionSafety EquipmentAbsolute Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelleher v. Power Authority

Plaintiff Terrence P. Kelleher, a drill blaster, was injured while working on a ladder at a hydroelectric facility when the ladder shifted and his gloved hand was pulled into a drill. He sued the defendant, an easement holder and facility owner, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court initially granted Kelleher partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that Kelleher's injury, which did not involve a fall from an elevated height or being struck by a falling object, was not an 'elevation-related risk' intended to be covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was dismissed.

Labor Law § 240(1)elevation-related hazardladder accidentsummary judgmentappellate reviewstatutory interpretationconstruction site injuryabsolute liabilityproximate causeworkplace safety
References
5
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

Olson v. Pyramid Crossgates Co.

Plaintiff, a mechanic for Pyramid Management Group, Inc., was injured while installing temporary lighting for defendant Pyramid Crossgates Company. He fell after stepping on a plywood platform, not intended as a safety device, which then collapsed. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), claiming the platform was a 'makeshift scaffold'. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing the platform was not a safety device and its use was not necessitated by the work. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). On appeal, the Court modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that the platform was not a safety device and plaintiff failed to establish a need to use it, thus denying plaintiff's motion and granting defendants' cross motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims was affirmed, with the § 200 claim being abandoned by the plaintiff.

Labor Law §240(1)Platform CollapseMakeshift ScaffoldElevation-Related RiskSummary Judgment MotionCross MotionAppellate DecisionLiability DeterminationIndustrial Code ViolationsConstruction Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2011

Wahab v. Agris & Brenner, LLC

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries when a scaffold plank collapsed at a construction site owned by the defendants. The plaintiff sued the owners under Labor Law § 240 (1), and the owners filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, Atlantic Contracting, LLC, for common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from both the plaintiff and the owners regarding the Labor Law claim, citing factual disputes over proximate cause, and also denied the owners' request for conditional summary judgment on indemnification. Upon reargument, the appellate court affirmed the denials related to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claims but modified the decision to grant the owners conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Atlantic.

Construction Site InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law 240(1) ViolationSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law IndemnificationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party ActionAppellate Division DecisionQueens CountyPersonal Injury Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1996

Del Vecchio v. State

The claimants, Salvatore and Karen Del Vecchio, appealed an order from the Court of Claims which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim. Salvatore Del Vecchio was injured while rescuing a co-worker who fell into Jamaica Bay during bridge construction, arguing his back injuries were a result of the incident caused by unsecured planking and lack of safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that Labor Law § 240 (1) provides "exceptional protection" for specific gravity-related accidents (falling from height, struck by falling object) and does not extend to a rescuer like Del Vecchio, who did not sustain a direct gravity-related injury. The majority concluded that the "danger invites rescue" doctrine is not applicable to Labor Law § 240 (1) claims due to the statute's absolute liability and limited scope, which should not be expanded. A dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine should apply to workers injured while rescuing someone imperiled by a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, emphasizing the statute's purpose of protecting workers and imposing strict liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineAbsolute LiabilityGravity-Related InjurySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 22,357 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