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
Dec 29, 2014

City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

The City and State of New York sued FedEx Ground, alleging the knowing delivery of unstamped cigarettes from 2005 to 2012, which violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA), the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and New York Public Health Law § 1399-ii, and constituted a public nuisance. FedEx Ground filed a motion to dismiss these claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss the CCTA, RICO, and RICO conspiracy claims, finding sufficient grounds for aggregation of sales, pattern of predicate acts, participation in the enterprise, injury to business or property, and proximate causation. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the New York Public Health Law claim, ruling that the 2013 amendment, which would grant the City and State enforcement authority, did not apply retroactively. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the public nuisance claim, concluding that it primarily involved alleged tax evasion, which is already subject to comprehensive regulation, rather than unauthorized shipments to minors.

Contraband CigarettesCigarette TraffickingRICO ActPublic Health LawPublic NuisanceMotion to DismissTax EvasionStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationProximate Cause
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1997

Melo v. Consolidated Edison Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) to a construction accident. The plaintiff was injured when a steel plate, attached to a backhoe and being hoisted, became disengaged and fell, striking the plaintiff who was at ground level. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, a decision which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court. The majority affirmed on the grounds that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies only to elevation-related hazards where the object falls from a significantly higher elevation than the work site, not merely due to gravity at ground level. The dissenting opinion argued that the use of an improvised hoist (backhoe and chain) and the elevation of even one end of the plate above the plaintiff's foot constituted an elevation-related hazard intended to be covered by the statute.

Labor Lawelevation differentialconstruction accidentfalling objectbackhoehoistslingstrict liabilitysummary judgmentappellate review
References
9
Case No. Index No. 157783/18, 596011/19; Appeal No. 5535; Case No. 2024-06221
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2026

Tejeda v. 57th & 6th Ground LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The plaintiff, Juan Miguel Presinal Tejeda, was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims after being injured due to a scaffold lacking guardrails. The Supreme Court also granted landlords' motion for summary judgment on their cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification and breach of contract against the plaintiff's employer and third-party defendants. The appellate court found that the employer's insurance policies were non-compliant with lease requirements, creating a gap in coverage and resulting in damages to the landlords. The court concluded that the violation of Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries and affirmed the lower court's decisions.

Scaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationBreach of ContractInsurance Coverage DisputePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyThird-Party ClaimsDuty to Provide Safe Workplace
References
4
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beltran v. City of New York

This case involves a third-party defendant, Mulvihill Electrical Contracting Corp., moving to dismiss a third-party action filed by New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) based on the exclusivity provision of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The underlying case stems from a plaintiff's injury sustained while employed by Mulvihill, who was under contract with NYCTA. NYCTA sought indemnification or contribution from Mulvihill under common law and contract, and for breach of contract due to Mulvihill's failure to procure insurance. The court analyzed the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 amendment regarding 'grave injury' as a bar to common-law claims. It ruled that while common-law indemnification/contribution claims are barred without grave injury, contractual indemnification claims are permissible. The court also allowed the breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance. Consequently, Mulvihill’s motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims was granted, but the motion to dismiss contractual claims and the breach of contract claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211Exclusivity ProvisionIndemnificationContributionBreach of ContractGrave InjuryThird-Party ClaimMotion to DismissContractual Obligation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Novie

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Montebello's Tree Preservation and Landscape Maintenance Law, under which a defendant was charged for removing trees without a permit. The defendant challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds including ultra vires, uncompensated taking, due process violations, First Amendment infringement, and equal protection. The Justice Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Tree Law. The court found the law served legitimate governmental purposes, its fees were reasonable, and the defendant's taking and due process claims were not ripe due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The First Amendment and equal protection challenges were also rejected.

Tree Preservation LawConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentLocal OrdinancesZoning Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,074 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