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

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYU Hospitals Center v. HRH Construction LLC (In re HRH Construction LLC)

NYU Hospitals Center appealed a Bankruptcy Court ruling in favor of HRH Construction LLC and Curtis Partition Corporation concerning a construction contract dispute for a radiology center renovation. NYU alleged HRH breached the contract by failing to proceed with Phase 2, while HRH claimed NYU obstructed its performance by contacting a replacement contractor and failing to make timely payments. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's findings that NYU breached the contract and its awards for damages to HRH and Curtis. However, the District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's holding that NYU held monies due to Curtis in trust under New York Lien Law Article 3-A, concluding no trust funds were established. All other claims by NYU against Curtis, including willful exaggeration of lien and indemnification, were denied.

Construction DisputeBreach of ContractBankruptcy AppealContractual ObligationsTimely PaymentsSubcontractor DisputesMechanic's LienIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party BeneficiaryFrustration of Performance
References
23
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00132 [234 AD3d 1078]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

James v. Marini Homes, LLC

Plaintiff, an employee of D&D Masonry Inc., was injured at a construction site by a thrown wooden board while working in an excavation. He sued Marini Homes, LLC, the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200(1) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed in part, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, finding the injury was not due to an elevation-related risk or normal exposure to falling objects. However, it affirmed the denial of dismissal for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved factual issues regarding the general contractor's supervisory control and knowledge of unsafe work practices.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewGeneral Contractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskFalling Object InjuryOverhead ProtectionSafe Place to Work
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mandziara v. Lowe's Home Centers

In 1995, the claimant suffered a back injury in Pennsylvania, leading to a workers' compensation claim. After multiple surgeries, symptoms were resolved by June 2001. In May 2003, while working for Lowe's Home Centers in Broome County, the claimant re-injured their back, initiating a new claim. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that apportionment did not apply to the workers' compensation award. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that apportionment is a factual issue and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court highlighted the claimant's asymptomatic period of over 14 months prior to the 2003 injury.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentBack InjuryPrior InjurySubstantial EvidenceAsymptomatic PeriodMedical OpinionCausal RelationshipAppeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2006

Guerrero v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.

Plaintiff Mary Guerrero sued Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for employment discrimination under Title VII and the NYHRL, alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliation by her supervisor, Daren Arrington. Arrington made offensive remarks, including a comment about her weight and calling her names. Although defendant reprimanded Arrington for one incident, plaintiff ultimately resigned after being transferred to a new department with an unfavorable schedule. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding Arrington's conduct not severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment and that plaintiff failed to prove retaliation, as she was agreeable to the transfer at the time and defendant provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the reassignment.

Employment discriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawHostile work environmentRetaliationSummary judgmentSupervisor harassmentWorkplace conductResignationFederal court
References
31
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02303
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2024

Flores v. Fort Green Homes, LLC

The plaintiff, Carlos Lemus Flores, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, regarding his personal injury claim against Fort Green Homes, LLC. Flores alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) after a fire extinguisher fell and struck him at a construction site while he was backfilling a foundation. The Supreme Court denied Flores's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the causes of action under both Labor Law sections. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the falling fire extinguisher was not a material being hoisted or a load requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1), and that Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1) was inapplicable because the incident area was not normally exposed to falling objects.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFalling ObjectLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationNegligenceSafety DevicesElevation-Related Risk
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06288
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2023

Matter of Puccio v. Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC

Claimant Anthony Puccio, a masonry worker, was rendered paraplegic after falling from a roof in September 2019. He filed a workers' compensation claim against Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC, which the State Insurance Fund (SIF) initially accepted but later controverted, asserting claimant was a partner and not an employee, thus excluded from coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board disallowed the claim, finding claimant was a profit-sharing partner/owner. Claimant appealed, arguing SIF failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 21-a (3) and that the Board erred in its finding of no employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the statutory compliance issue was unpreserved and substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant was a partner, not an employee.

Employer-Employee RelationshipPartnership StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCoverage DenialProfit-Sharing AgreementTax Returns as EvidenceAdministrative ReviewReconsideration DenialJudicial Review of Board DecisionsSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02756 [194 AD3d 421]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Mullins v. Center Line Studios, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the earlier order. It ruled that Center Line Studios, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200 claims because it was not a statutory agent and lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work. Additionally, NYC Production Core LLC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against it, with the exception of contractual indemnification claims, as it was identified as the plaintiff's special employer. A triable issue of fact was found to exist regarding Center Line Studios, Inc.'s potential common-law negligence in creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition.

Labor Law §§ 240(1)Labor Law §§ 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentSpecial Employer DoctrineContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentLadder Fall InjuryPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08400 [123 AD3d 661]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Garcia v. Market Associates

The plaintiffs, Alvin Garcia and his wife, initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by Mr. Garcia at a demolition site. While operating a water truck to control dust, a concrete slab collapsed beneath the vehicle, causing it to fall to the basement level. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants on most claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying summary judgment to Market Associates and Rockstone Development Corp. regarding the Labor Law section 200 and common-law negligence claims. However, the dismissal of Labor Law sections 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against all defendants, and all claims against Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., were affirmed.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityMeans and MethodsSafe Place to WorkDemolition Site
References
22
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04005
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2016

Kolenovic v. 56th Realty, LLC

Dzevat Kolenovic, a handyman, fell from a ladder while repairing a leaky roof. He sued his employer, 56th Realty, LLC, its managing agent Glenwood Management Corp., and Manhattan Art & Antiques Center (MAAC), a section of the building. The Supreme Court denied defendants' cross motion to amend their answer to assert Workers' Compensation Law defenses and dismiss the complaint, and for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, dismissing the complaint against MAAC, finding it was not a legal entity. The Court affirmed the denial of dismissal for Glenwood, concluding it was not an alter ego of 56th Realty, LLC. It also affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, ruling that roof repair is covered work and the ladder, being unstable and wet, was an inadequate safety device.

Ladder FallRoof RepairWorker InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Workers' Compensation Law ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,810 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