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
May 19, 2011

Kausal v. Educational Products Information Exchange Institute

The plaintiff initiated legal action against the defendant, seeking damages for the breach of an employment contract and a violation of Labor Law article 6. The core of the dispute revolved around an employment agreement where the defendant, through its project manager, sponsored the plaintiff for an H1B work visa, promising a minimum annual salary of $46,500 and tuition benefits. Despite these terms being formalized in visa application documents signed by the defendant's representative, the plaintiff alleged non-payment in accordance with the agreement. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling in favor of the defendant by misclassifying the plaintiff as an independent contractor. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the complaint and awarding judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability, concluding that a valid employment contract existed and the plaintiff was indeed an employee under Labor Law, remitting the case for a trial on damages.

breach of contractemployment contractLabor LawH1B visawage disputewrongful dismissalappellate reviewnonjury trialdamagesliability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
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

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
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
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
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
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

Hernandez v. Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC

The case concerns a putative class action brought by delivery drivers against several defendants, including Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC, for alleged violations of Labor Law article 6 regarding wage and benefit payments. The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, categorizing the drivers as independent contractors. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship due to the defendants' control over their work. The court also determined that the documentary evidence provided by the defendants was insufficient to conclusively prove the drivers were independent contractors, thus denying the motions to dismiss.

Class ActionLabor LawWage and HourEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDegree of ControlDelivery DriversWorkers' Rights
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 22,385 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