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

Morelock v. Danbrod Realty Corporation

Plaintiff, injured due to a scaffold collapse during a house renovation project overseen by Joel Levin for Danbrod Realty Corporation, initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Danbrod, Levin, and Morton Schermerhorn, Jr. The Supreme Court initially granted Danbrod's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. However, on appeal, the court determined that Danbrod, a real estate development corporation purchasing the property solely for commercial renovation and resale, did not qualify for the homeowner exemption from strict liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision regarding Danbrod and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability against Danbrod.

Labor Lawscaffold collapsepersonal injurysummary judgmentstrict liabilityowner liabilitycommercial use exemptionreal estate developmentrenovation projectAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2002

Fuga v. St. Moritz Holding, LLC

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order granting a laborer partial summary judgment against the owner and general contractor for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The laborer sought recovery for personal injuries sustained when a scaffold collapsed. The defendants contested summary judgment, citing the plaintiff's non-compliance with a discovery order to produce coworker addresses. However, the court ruled that the defendants had sufficient time to locate the coworkers and that the requested disclosure was futile. This futility was based on the defendants' own admissions regarding a malfunctioning scaffold part and the absence of a safety harness, rendering coworker testimony irrelevant to liability under section 240 (1). The court also emphasized that comparative negligence is not a valid defense for a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation.

Scaffold CollapsePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawStatutory LiabilityDiscovery DisputeCoworker TestimonyFutility of DisclosureComparative NegligenceConstruction Accident
References
3
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
Oct 04, 1996

Vernum v. Zilka

The plaintiff fell from a ladder while removing snow and ice from the roof of a rental building owned by the defendants. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, reasoning that snow removal is not an activity covered by this section. The appellate court examined whether snow removal constitutes "cleaning," "maintenance," or "repair" under the Labor Law, concluding it is a form of "cleaning" and not "domestic" work, thereby falling within the statute's protection. The court also determined that the plaintiff was an "employee" as defined by the Labor Law. Given the undisputed facts that the fall was caused by an unsecured ladder while working at a height, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion, and granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)ladder fallsnow removalcleaning activityemployee statussummary judgmentappellate decisionpremises liabilitybuilding maintenancestatutory interpretation
References
18
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
Showing 1-10 of 23,219 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