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

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

Lawyer v. Rotterdam Ventures, Inc.

Plaintiff Robert E. Lawyer, an employee, suffered serious personal injuries after falling from a ladder while installing a sign on the defendant's building. He and his wife alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for the plaintiffs and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), emphasizing the nondelegable duty of owners under the statute. However, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision regarding Labor Law §§ 200 (1) and 241 (6), dismissing these causes of action due to a lack of specific regulation violations for § 241 (6) and no demonstration of supervisory control or notice for § 200 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction Site SafetyOwner LiabilityNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafe Workplace
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

IKEA U.S., Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals

This case concerns a petitioner who was found to have violated Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) for failing to pay weekly wages to manual workers. The initial determination by the Commissioner of Labor was confirmed by the Industrial Board of Appeals. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, had previously confirmed this determination and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division reviewed the proceeding, treating it as properly transferred. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner employed manual workers and violated the Labor Law by using a bi-weekly payroll scheme instead of weekly payments. Consequently, the Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court's judgment, confirmed the part of the determination finding the Labor Law violation, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

CPLR Article 78Labor Law ViolationWage PaymentManual WorkersBi-weekly PayrollSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionVacated JudgmentConfirmed DeterminationDismissed Petition
References
6
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
Jul 28, 2011

Gonzalez v. Woodbourne Arboretum, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the plaintiff, administrator of the decedent Ciro A. Mata's estate, concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The decedent died in June 2005 after a 'water cannon' tipped over while being moved on properties owned by Leonard Litwin and Woodbourne Arboretum, Inc. The plaintiff alleged wrongful death and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against Woodbourne Arboretum, Inc. and Woodbourne Cultural Nurseries, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted dismissal of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, ruling the work was routine maintenance. Additionally, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss based on Workers’ Compensation Law, finding no special employment relationship or alter ego status with the decedent's direct employer, Leonard Litwin. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order in all appealed and cross-appealed aspects.

Wrongful DeathLabor Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentRoutine MaintenanceSpecial Employment DoctrineAlter Ego DoctrineIndustrial AccidentAppellate ReviewConstruction Safety
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
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
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

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 23,969 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