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
Oct 08, 2009

D'Elia v. City of New York

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning personal injuries sustained while working as a surveyor. The original order granted summary judgment to defendants on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) claims, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.23. The appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars and denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding defendants lacked supervisory authority over the plaintiff's work. The case involved an alleged fall on a steeply inclined slope made of loosely compacted dirt and rocks at a construction site.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentBill of Particulars AmendmentConstruction Site AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndustrial Code ViolationNegligenceAppellate ReviewEarthen Slope Fall
References
13
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

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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1992

Biszick v. Ninnie Construction Corp.

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Duchess County, which granted summary judgment motions by several defendants, including Halmar Construction Corp. and International Business Machines Corporation. These motions dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, specifically causes of action based on Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly dismissed as it relied on general safety standards, which are insufficient under this section. The Labor Law § 200 claim was also correctly dismissed because the alleged defect originated from a subcontractor's methods, and the defendants lacked supervisory control over the operation. The court found no merit in the plaintiffs' remaining arguments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Construction SafetyWorkplace SafetyNondelegable DutySubcontractor LiabilityAppellate AffirmationNew York Supreme Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Webber v. City of Dunkirk

Justices Lawton and Balio dissent in part from a ruling, agreeing that 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (k) and 23-9.2 (b) lack sufficient specific standards for a Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. However, they disagree with the application of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c), arguing it does not apply as the backhoe was in use during the accident, and any violation was not a proximate cause. They reject the notion that the backhoe was not in use while workers raked blacktop, as the operator remained inside with the engine running. Furthermore, they dismiss the argument that lowering the bucket would have alerted workers to forward movement, deeming it speculative and not aligned with the regulation's purpose. Thus, they would grant summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Labor LawBackhoe AccidentSummary JudgmentProximate CauseConstruction SafetyAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionWorkplace Safety RegulationsNew York Labor LawIndustrial Code
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2004

Thomas v. Fall Creek Contractors, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order denying his motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing both claims. The court found that the temporary wooden stairs, from which the plaintiff fell, were under construction and the plaintiff was aware they were not bolted. Another set of completed stairs was available. The stairs did not break and were not defective, implying the plaintiff's actions were the sole cause of injury. Regarding the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, which relied on 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(i) concerning portable ladders, the plaintiff conceded the specific 36-inch extension requirement was not applicable. Since no other regulation was cited, this claim was also dismissed.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentTemporary StairsSole Cause of InjuryLadder RegulationAppellate ReviewNew York CourtCPLR 3212(b)
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

Turchioe v. AT&T Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff, a laborer, sustained a back injury while manually transporting a heavy ductlift up a stairway with a co-worker, alleging the co-worker crouched and shifted the full weight onto him. The initial order granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified this, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, including all cross claims and third-party actions. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed as the lifting activity was not a 'special hazard'. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked evidence of lighting violations or causation by debris. The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed due to the absence of supervisory control by the owner or general contractor over the work.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentThird-Party ClaimsCommon Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityWorker Safety
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 21,663 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