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

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
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2002

Bernier v. Gabriel Contracting

The plaintiff, a carpenter employed by K & C Construction Corporation (subcontractor), sustained injuries in a fall from an unsecured ladder while working at a construction site managed by Gabriel Contracting (general contractor). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to both defendants, dismissing the personal injury complaint, based on the plaintiff being a special employee of Gabriel, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding a factual dispute regarding the special employment relationship and thus reinstating the complaint. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability, citing an issue of fact as to whether the fall was a substantial factor in the injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary Judgment AppealSpecial EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 240(1)General Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityLadder FallScaffold Safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1985

Cannata v. One Estate, Inc.

The plaintiff, Peter Cannata, an employee of Colonial Art Decorators, Inc., fell and was injured on September 22, 1978, while working at the offices of Cyrus J. Lawrence, Inc., in a building owned by One Estate, Inc. He sustained injuries after climbing on cardboard boxes to paint a ceiling, which subsequently collapsed. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed the complaint, finding that the defendants were not liable. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that Labor Law § 240 was inapplicable as a safe ladder was provided, and the plaintiff's decision to use the boxes was the sole proximate cause of his injury, thereby negating common-law negligence or statutory violation.

Personal InjuryFall AccidentLadder SafetyWorkplace InjuryPremises LiabilityLabor LawStatutory InterpretationProximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2005

Pichardo v. Aurora Contractors, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Twin Restoration, Inc., sustained personal injuries while performing waterproofing work on a school construction project. He fell from an unsecured section of a disassembled extension ladder, which he was instructed to use by his supervisor. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court finding that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices. The court determined that the plaintiff's actions were not the sole proximate cause of the accident, as he followed supervisor instructions and the nature of the work required the ladder to be separated.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallLabor Law ViolationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInadequate Safety DevicesProximate CauseSupervisor InstructionWorkplace Safety
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2000

Schuler v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center & Marina, Inc.

Michael Schuler sustained personal injuries from falling off an inadequately secured ladder while working. He filed a lawsuit against Kings Plaza Shopping Center and Marina, Inc., and Structure, Inc., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court granted his motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) but erred in denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims. Additionally, the Supreme Court incorrectly denied the defendants' claim for indemnification against the third-party defendant, Don Burns, doing business as Burns Mechanical. It was determined that Michael Schuler did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Consequently, the order was modified to dismiss the aforementioned negligence and Labor Law claims against the appellants and to dismiss the third-party complaint against Don Burns.

Personal InjuryLadder FallPremises LiabilityLabor Law §240(1)NegligenceIndemnificationContributionGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
15
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

Kwang Ho Kim v. D & W Shin Realty Corp.

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning a personal injury action brought by Kwang Ho Kam and his wife against D & W Shin Realty Corp. and AGP Seafood Corp. (ACP). Kwang Ho Kam sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while performing siding work. The Supreme Court's order dated January 25, 2006, was challenged on multiple grounds, including summary judgment on cross-claims for common-law indemnification and breach of an insurance procurement provision, and dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims. The appellate court modified the original order by granting D & W's motion for summary judgment on the insurance procurement breach claim, reversing the dismissal of D & W's indemnification and insurance breach cross-claims, and denying ACP's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding ACP acted as an "owner." However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 claims against ACP due to lack of supervisory control and upheld the untimeliness of D & W's motion to dismiss Labor Law claims. The order was affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCross-ClaimsIndemnificationInsurance ProcurementBreach of ContractUnsecured LadderWorker Safety
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 12,913 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