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

Olson v. Pyramid Crossgates Co.

Plaintiff, a mechanic for Pyramid Management Group, Inc., was injured while installing temporary lighting for defendant Pyramid Crossgates Company. He fell after stepping on a plywood platform, not intended as a safety device, which then collapsed. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), claiming the platform was a 'makeshift scaffold'. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing the platform was not a safety device and its use was not necessitated by the work. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). On appeal, the Court modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that the platform was not a safety device and plaintiff failed to establish a need to use it, thus denying plaintiff's motion and granting defendants' cross motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims was affirmed, with the § 200 claim being abandoned by the plaintiff.

Labor Law §240(1)Platform CollapseMakeshift ScaffoldElevation-Related RiskSummary Judgment MotionCross MotionAppellate DecisionLiability DeterminationIndustrial Code ViolationsConstruction Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01074 [202 AD3d 1297]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

DeGraff v. Colontonio

Plaintiff Ritchie DeGraff was hired by defendant William Colontonio to construct a house. While wrapping the house in Tyvek, DeGraff used a lull with a makeshift plywood platform and fell, sustaining injuries. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The jury initially found DeGraff to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries, denying his motion for a directed verdict. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the judgment, finding that the lull was not an adequate safety device and there was no evidence that DeGraff knew he was expected to use other available safety devices like ladders or scaffolding. Consequently, the court held that no rational process could conclude DeGraff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, granting his motion for a directed verdict on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and remitting the case for a trial on damages.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related HazardDirected VerdictProximate CauseHomeowner ExemptionConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewScaffoldingLadders
References
39
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00908 [213 AD3d 1117]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Petre v. Allied Devices Corp.

Claimant Gheorghe Petre appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The underlying Board decision had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, which amended the claimant's work-related injury claim and directed his doctor to seek prior authorization for Gabapentin. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the Board's denial, limiting its scope to whether the Board had abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily. Finding no new evidence, material change in condition, or improper consideration of issues by the Board, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision. Thus, the claimant's appeal for reconsideration and/or full Board review was ultimately denied.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionReconsiderationInjury ClaimMedical ExpensesDrug FormularyGabapentinProcedural Due ProcessAdministrative Law
References
7
Case No. ADJ854108 (OAK 0281808)
Regular
Oct 07, 2008

PATRICIA BECK vs. INTEGRATED DEVICES TECHNOLOGY, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, RANDSTAND, CIGA ON BEHALF OF LEGION INSURANCE IN LIQUIDATION, BROADSPIRE

This case involves an applicant who sustained an industrial injury to her left thumb, hand, and wrist while employed by both a general employer (Randstand) and a special employer (Integrated Devices Technology, IDT). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to correct minor errors in the original Findings and Award, specifically regarding citations to the Insurance Code and the identification of the general employer. The WCAB affirmed the original decision that IDT's insurer, Safety National Casualty Corporation, constitutes "other insurance," thereby relieving CIGA of liability for the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIntegrated Devices TechnologySafety National Casualty CorporationMatrix Absence ManagementRandstandCIGALegion InsuranceBroadspirespecial employergeneral employer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agresti v. Silverstein Properties, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured when an improvised scaffold collapsed, causing a wooden plank to fall and strike him in the head. The court affirmed the partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the defendants. It was found that the makeshift scaffold was inadequate as a safety device and the harm flowed directly from the force of gravity. The court also determined that the lack of certainty regarding the accident's exact preceding events or the failure to pinpoint a specific defect in the scaffold did not warrant denying the motion for summary judgment.

Scaffold collapseWorkplace injuryLabor Law violationSummary judgmentAppellate decisionConstruction accidentGravity-related incidentSafety deviceLiabilityNew York jurisprudence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2001

Orellana v. American Airlines

The plaintiff, an employee of Dramar Construction, was injured after falling from an elevated roof section at LaGuardia Airport while working on an American Airlines building. He used insulation bundles as makeshift steps. The plaintiff sued American Airlines and Premier Roofing Company, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for inadequate safety devices. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment, citing factual disputes over ladder availability. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that merely having ladders elsewhere did not satisfy the statute's requirement for proper protection, thus granting summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff.

personal injurypremises liabilityconstruction accidentelevated work sitesafety devicesstatutory violationsummary judgmentappellate reviewnondelegable dutyproximate cause
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiVincenzo v. Tripart Development, Inc.

Joseph A. DiVincenzo and Daniel Reimherr were injured when makeshift scaffolding collapsed during drywall installation. DiVincenzo, working for subcontractor Reimherr (hired by general contractor Siltone), sued owner Tripart, Siltone, and Reimherr under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted DiVincenzo partial summary judgment on liability, as no safety devices were provided. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the argument that DiVincenzo's actions were the sole proximate cause. The court also addressed indemnification claims, denying Reimherr's cross-motion against DiVincenzo but granting Siltone's claim for common-law indemnification against Reimherr, due to Reimherr's direction and control over DiVincenzo's work.

Scaffolding CollapseLabor Law 240(1)Worker InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndemnificationProximate CauseEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2008

Collins v. West 13th Street Owners Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion of defendant Cinema Four, Inc. and the cross motion of West 13th Street Owners Corp. for summary judgment, while granting plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability for a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The plaintiff was injured after falling from a makeshift scaffold due to the lack of appropriate safety devices. The appellate court rejected the defendants' argument that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, emphasizing the unavailability of proper safety equipment and affirmed that West 13th Street Owners Corp. qualified as an 'owner' under Labor Law § 240 (1). The order was unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Scaffold AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryProximate CauseOwner LiabilityNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2009

Silvia v. Bow Tie Partners, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph C. Silvia, III was injured after a plank on a makeshift scaffold broke beneath him, causing him to fall several feet at a construction site. He and his wife, derivatively, commenced an action asserting a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. On appeal, the court reversed, finding that defendants and D & B Acoustical raised questions of fact regarding whether there was a statutory violation and whether plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thus precluding partial summary judgment.

Construction AccidentScaffolding FailureFall from HeightLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment ReversalSafety Device AdequacyProximate CauseContributory NegligenceEmployer LiabilityConstruction Site Safety
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 671 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