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
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

McFadden v. Lee

The plaintiff, a self-employed painter, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing exterior painting for the defendants at their home. He filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants did not exercise supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, which is a prerequisite for liability under these specific statutes and common-law negligence when the injury stems from the work method rather than a dangerous premises condition.

Personal InjuryLadder FallLabor Law 200Common Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionHomeowner LiabilityIndependent ContractorSupervisory AuthoritySafe Place to Work
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kendle v. August Bohl Contracting Co.

Samuel Kendle, an employee of subcontractor Clifford Quay & Sons, Inc., was injured while operating a motorized wheelbarrow at a construction site in Saratoga County. He fell when plywood covering a trench, allegedly dug by defendant August Bohl Contracting Company, Inc. (Bohl), buckled. Kendle and his wife sued the property owners, construction manager, and Bohl, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims but denied Bohl's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and negligence causes of action. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Bohl did not exercise supervisory control over Kendle's work, a necessary element for Labor Law § 200 liability. The court also dismissed the negligence claim, noting that the trench was readily observable to the experienced plaintiff.

Construction AccidentMotorized Wheelbarrow InjuryWorksite HazardSubcontractor NegligenceLabor Law LiabilityLack of Supervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealAppellate ReversalPlywood Failure
References
7
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
Jul 14, 1998

Higgins v. 1790 Broadway Associates

Plaintiff, an employee of O & P Management Corp., suffered injuries while attempting to repair a freight elevator using a defective ladder. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing claims against all defendants: Central Elevator, 1790 Broadway Associates, John Phufas, and O & P Management. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Central Elevator and the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against 1790 Broadway Associates and Phufas. However, it denied the cross-motion by 1790 Broadway Associates and John Phufas to dismiss claims of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, reinstating these claims. The court reasoned that it was foreseeable a worker might use the defective ladder, which constituted a dangerous condition, and that the owners failed to demonstrate lack of notice regarding this unsafe condition.

Elevator AccidentDefective LadderCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentActual NoticeConstructive NoticeWorkplace Safety
References
16
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
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

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schick v. 200 Blydenburgh, LLC

The plaintiff, a Verizon field technician, was injured when his ladder slipped due to sand, dirt, or dust on the floor while installing telephone lines in a warehouse. The warehouse was leased by Pal Supply Corp. from 200 Blydenburgh, LLC. The plaintiff and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The appellate court modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that Pal Supply Corp. failed to make a prima facie showing to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Additionally, the defendants failed to show that the plaintiff's work did not fall under the enumerated activities of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). However, the denial of the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) was affirmed due to unresolved issues of fact regarding the accident's cause.

Personal InjuryLadder FallWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual IssuesNegligenceConstruction WorkWorker Safety
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1997

Murtha v. Integral Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, an electrician, was injured by falling debris at a construction site due to drilling by Integral Construction Corp., the general contractor, directly above an unblocked basement area with no warnings. Plaintiff initially filed a negligence claim, later specifying violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6). The IAS Court dismissed the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims. The appellate court reversed, finding the Labor Law § 200 claim adequately asserted despite its late inclusion in the bill of particulars, as it codified common-law negligence. Furthermore, the court sustained the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, accepting the plaintiff's identification of specific regulatory violations (12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (g) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1)) in opposition to the summary judgment motion, concluding that the allegations constituted clear violations of these safety commands.

Construction accidentFalling debrisLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentAppellate reversalWorker safetyNYCRR regulationsPremises liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 21,101 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