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. 2023 NY Slip Op 03319
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2023

Winston Salem RI LLC v. Ladder Capital Fin. LLC

This case concerns an appeal by Winston Salem RI LLC against Ladder Capital Finance LLC regarding the dismissal of breach of contract claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, reinstating claims related to the payment of forbearance fees and improper foreclosures, while affirming other aspects. The court clarified that a specific loan agreement section does not bar claims not challenging the reasonableness of Ladder's actions. Furthermore, it ruled that demand futility was adequately pleaded under Delaware law and that there is no heightened pleading requirement for breach of contract claims.

Breach of ContractDemand FutilityLoan AgreementsForbearance FeesImproper ForeclosuresAppellate ReviewDelaware LawPleading RequirementsContractual InterpretationMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. City of Yonkers

Plaintiff Nekesha Moore was injured after tripping in a sidewalk depression in front of a property owned by 1225 Yonkers Ave. Realty Corp. and leased by 1225 Launderie Corp. The depression was allegedly caused by workers from Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. who had removed a section of the sidewalk. New York Ladder & Scaffold Corp. (NY Ladder) was contracted by the tenant to install a sidewalk shed. The Supreme Court denied NY Ladder's motion for summary judgment. However, an appellate court found that NY Ladder demonstrated it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, its contract was not a comprehensive property maintenance obligation, and it did not create the dangerous condition or have notice of it. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against NY Ladder.

Sidewalk depressionTrip and fallPremises liabilitySummary judgmentDuty of careContractual obligationSidewalk shedNotice of conditionAppellate reviewTort law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGill v. Qudsi

This case addresses liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a plaintiff who fell from a ladder while removing a second-story window. The court clarified that while the ladder itself might have been adequate for elevation, the defendant's failure to provide a separate safety device for handling and lowering the 40-50 pound window constituted a distinct elevation-related hazard. This omission was found to be a statutory violation and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident. The court further emphasized that claims of the plaintiff's contributory negligence or carelessness were irrelevant to establishing liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The lower court's order was affirmed.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Elevation HazardLadder FallWindow Removal AccidentSafety Device FailureProximate CauseContributory Negligence ImmaterialStatutory ViolationWorkplace InjuryConstruction Site Safety
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2008

Berg v. ALBANY LADDER COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff Frederick Berg was injured while unloading steel trusses from a flatbed truck when a bundle became unstable and toppled. He sustained injuries after climbing into the bundle as it fell to the ground. Berg filed a 'falling worker' claim under Labor Law § 240 (1), but Supreme Court and the Appellate Division granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reiterating that Labor Law § 240 (1) protections require demonstration of an elevation-related hazard and a failure to provide an adequate safety device, which Berg failed to prove.

Worker InjuryConstruction Site AccidentElevation-Related HazardLack of Safety DeviceSummary JudgmentAppellate Division AffirmanceCourt of Appeals DecisionLabor Law ClaimUnloading OperationsSteel Trusses
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2005

Arevalo v. Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.

The plaintiff worker sustained personal injuries after falling off a ladder while performing maintenance on an electric sign. The plaintiff sought relief under Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the work was routine maintenance, not a repair covered by the statute. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Upon renewal, the court adhered to its original decision. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal, holding that replacing components due to normal wear and tear constitutes routine maintenance, not a repair under the statute.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentRoutine MaintenanceLabor Law 240(1)Summary Judgment DismissalAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationElectric Sign MaintenanceWorker FallConstruction Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Manufacturing Co.

A factory employee, referred to as Plaintiff, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while cleaning a manufactured steel wall module. Plaintiff sued Bechtel National, Inc., the purchaser of the module, and Warner Martin and Shirley Martin, the landlords of the factory, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1). Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division dismissed the claim, concluding that the activity was not protected under the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed these decisions, emphasizing that Labor Law § 240 (1) is primarily intended for construction industry hazards and does not extend to the routine cleaning of a product within a manufacturing process, despite previous broad interpretations of 'cleaning' and 'structure'.

Ladder FallCleaning ActivityFactory Worker InjuryLabor Law InterpretationConstruction SafetyManufacturing ProcessStatutory CoverageScope of EmploymentNew York Court of AppealsAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. 310 West 38th, L.L.C.

This case concerns a laborer who suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The defendant-appellant sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), contending it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, which would invoke the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. The motion court correctly rejected this argument, noting the lack of evidence demonstrating the employer's complete domination and control over the appellant's operations. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, confirming the plaintiff's protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) given his engagement in painting a building at the time of injury. Additionally, an appeal regarding a motion to renew and reargue was unanimously dismissed as it stemmed from a nonappealable order.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor Law ComplianceWorkers' Compensation BarAlter Ego DefenseAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyStatutory ProtectionNonappealable Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. LeChase

Plaintiff, an employee of Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while disconnecting electric service at an apartment complex. The complex was owned by Chase Woods Manor, L.P., managed by Welker Property Management, Inc., and electrical work was performed by Douglas Bibby, d/b/a Bibby Electric. Plaintiff brought an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against all defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of supervisory control and that they were not 'owners' of the specific equipment being worked on, nor did they hire or pay RG&E. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The court dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim due to lack of defendants' supervisory control and granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, denying plaintiff's cross-motion, finding that strict application of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) was unjust given the public utility context and defendants' lack of control over RG&E's work and equipment.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityPublic Utility EmployeeAbsolute LiabilityStatutory AgentSafe Place to Work
References
24
Case No. Index No. 28997/20; Appeal No. 5887; Case No. 2025-00685
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Roque v. 240 Lincoln Place LLC

Plaintiff Antonio Rosario Roque sought summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim after falling from a 12-foot A-frame ladder that slipped while he was working on it. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion. Defendant 240 Lincoln Place LLC appealed, arguing that Roque was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, citing his use of a closed A-frame ladder and the availability of an eight-foot ladder. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court found that the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact, noting Roque's valid reasons for his ladder choice and the instability of the alternative ladder.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallWorker SafetyDefendant LiabilityPlaintiff RightsNegligence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 1990

Gonfiantini v. Zino

The plaintiff, an employee of A&A Awning Corp., was injured after falling from a ladder without rubber shoes while installing an awning. The plaintiff sued New York Builders Supply Co., alleging a defective ladder and a violation of Labor Law § 240. During the trial, evidence emerged that the ladder was also unsecured. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend pleadings to conform to this new evidence and for a directed verdict, ruling only on the defective ladder theory. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, finding that the trial court erred in denying the motion to conform pleadings to the evidence, as the unsecured ladder theory was presented during cross-examination without objection, causing minimal prejudice to the defendants. The case was remanded for a new trial on liability only, as the jury was improperly precluded from considering a viable theory of liability under Labor Law § 240.

Workers' CompensationLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityNegligencePleading AmendmentDirected VerdictTrial ProcedureAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction Accident
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 688 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