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

Watso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Plaintiff Thomas J. Watso was injured after falling from a building under construction while performing welding work. He, along with his wife, initiated an action against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Gilbane Building Company, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. However, the defendants appealed, presenting evidence that Watso might have deliberately chosen not to use a provided static line, thereby raising the defense of a recalcitrant worker. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that there was a legitimate triable issue of fact concerning the adequacy of the safety device provided and whether Watso was indeed a recalcitrant worker, ultimately denying the motion for partial summary judgment.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSummary JudgmentLabor LawRecalcitrant WorkerSafety DevicePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of Fact
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 1996

Sorrentino v. Ronbet Co.

This case involved a building employee suing the building owner for personal injuries sustained on the job. The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, citing the Workers’ Compensation Law as a bar, was granted by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. This decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that a prior denial of a summary judgment motion did not prevent a later motion to dismiss during trial. The merits of the case distinguished it from similar precedents, primarily because documentary evidence proved the plaintiff remained the defendant's employee despite claims of a management company being the employer, supported by W-2 statements, mortgage applications, and lack of supervisory evidence from the management company. The listing of the management company as the employer with the Workers’ Compensation Board was deemed inconsequential since the identity of the employer was not disputed before the Board.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipDismissal of ComplaintSummary JudgmentTrial MotionDocumentary EvidenceSupervisionW-2 StatementMortgage Application
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rea v. Albert Elia Building Co.

Plaintiff Philip John Rea, a welder, sustained serious injuries when a scaffold rope parted, causing him to fall while working on a sewage treatment plant. He and his wife (plaintiffs) moved for partial summary judgment, arguing absolute liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and (3). The defendant, Albert Elia Building Company, Inc., submitted an attorney's affidavit that did not dispute the plaintiffs' account of the accident or the cause. The court found no factual issues on liability, affirming the defendant's absolute duty under the statute which cannot be avoided by claims of plaintiff's fault or defendant's lack of fault. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted the motion for partial summary judgment.

Scaffold AccidentAbsolute LiabilityLabor LawPartial Summary JudgmentWelder InjuryConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityWorker SafetyStatutory DutyPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06203 [187 AD3d 665]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2020

Matter of Alico Servs. Corp. v. Westchester Bldg. Co. LLC

The Supreme Court in New York County confirmed an arbitration award and supplemental award favoring Alico Services Corporation (tenant) against Westchester Building Company LLC (landlord), entering judgment for $2,485,727.38. Westchester Building Company LLC appealed, seeking to vacate the award. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The court reiterated that arbitration awards are only vacated for corruption, fraud, misconduct, or exceeding arbitrator's power, none of which were found. The appellate court concluded that the award was not 'utterly irrational' and the landlord's disagreement with lease interpretation was not a valid basis for vacatur.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur DeniedCPLR 7511Appellate DivisionLease InterpretationPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator's PowersRationality StandardContract Dispute
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04978
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Robles v. Taconic Mgt. Co., LLC

Edilberto Robles, a laborer, sustained head injuries from a closing freight elevator door and commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence against multiple entities involved in the building's management, operation, and his employment. The Supreme Court granted several motions for summary judgment. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It denied summary judgment to Taconic Management Company, LLC, Taconic Management Corp., 111 Chelsea, LLC, and Waldorf Carting Corporation on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding supervision and control and the alter ego defense. The court also denied summary judgment on indemnification claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and Waldorf Carting Corporation. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Taconic and Chelsea, and the dismissal of claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and New York Elevator & Electrical Corporation were affirmed.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentIndemnificationThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawAlter ego defensePremises liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2003

Di Roma v. Mutual of America Life Insurance

This case involves a plaintiff suing Mutual of America Life Insurance Company, Inc., and its general contractor, Turner Construction Company, for damages sustained during building renovations. A wall collapsed from Mutual's building onto the plaintiff's adjacent property, causing damage to the roof. The defendants failed to implement required protective measures, and subsequent work further exacerbated the damage. The trial court initially refused to instruct the jury on res ipsa loquitur, leading to a verdict in favor of the defendants. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the elements for a res ipsa loquitur charge were met, and remanded the case for a new trial.

Res ipsa loquiturNegligenceBuilding collapseConstruction damageProperty damageTrial court errorAppellate reviewJury chargeExclusive controlRemand
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strauss v. Belle Realty Co.

On July 13, 1977, a power failure caused by Consolidated Edison left most of New York City in darkness. Plaintiff, Julius Strauss, a tenant in an apartment building, fell on darkened stairs in a common area while attempting to obtain water, sustaining injuries. He sued his landlord, Belle Realty Company, for negligence in maintaining the stairs and Consolidated Edison for negligence in failing to provide electricity. The central legal question was whether Con Edison owed a duty of care to Strauss, a non-customer regarding the common areas of the building, given his landlord's separate contractual relationship with the utility. The court concluded that, as a matter of public policy concerning a widespread blackout, liability for injuries in a building's common areas should be limited by the contractual relationship. The Appellate Division's decision to dismiss the complaint against Con Edison was affirmed.

Power OutageBlackoutUtility LiabilityDuty of CareContractual RelationshipPrivity of ContractGross NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityPublic Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CHARLES F. EVANS CO., INC. v. Zurich Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Charles F. Evans Company, an insured, sought a declaration that defendant Zurich Insurance Company must defend it in an underlying action. This underlying action involved Damon G. Douglas Company, a general contractor, who subcontracted roofing work to Evans for a BASF Corporation building. BASF counterclaimed against Douglas for improperly installed and leaking roofing, leading Douglas to bring a third-party action against Evans for indemnity and contribution. BASF's counterclaim alleged bodily injuries to its employees due to slip-and-falls from the leaking roof, resulting in lost-time and workers' compensation claims. The court found that the insurance policy, covering damages for 'bodily injury,' was at least ambiguous regarding these claims and thus must be construed against the insurer, triggering Zurich's duty to defend Evans. The court also rejected Zurich's argument that the slip-and-falls were not 'occurrences' (accidents) under the policy.

Duty to DefendInsurance CoverageBodily InjurySlip and FallConstruction ContractRoofing DefectWorkers' Compensation ClaimsPolicy AmbiguityThird-Party ActionIndemnity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Solow Bldg. Co., LLC v. Atc Associates, Inc.

Plaintiffs Solow Building Company, LLC and Solovieff Realty Co., LLC (Solow) initiated a civil action against ATC Associates, Inc. and Safeway Environmental Corp. (defendants) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Solow also sought a declaratory judgment for indemnification against potential future claims arising from asbestos exposure due to the defendants' allegedly improper abatement work in the Solow Building. Defendants moved to dismiss the indemnification claim, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the claim was not ripe. The court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that without any identified injured parties, existing claims, or sufficient immediacy, the request for declaratory relief was premature and based on hypothetical facts.

Ripeness DoctrineDeclaratory Judgment ActSubject Matter JurisdictionClean Air ActAsbestos AbatementIndemnificationFuture ClaimsHypothetical ControversyEnvironmental LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2005

Hageman v. B & G Building Services, LLC

The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at a Home Depot store, initially sued Home Depot, and later commenced an action against B & G Building Services, LLC (Building) for personal injuries. Building cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was the plaintiff's employer and that the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law due to an alter ego or joint venturer relationship with the plaintiff's direct employers, the Electrical corporations. The Supreme Court granted Building's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was reversed; the appellate court determined that Building failed to provide sufficient proof to establish an alter ego or joint venturer relationship, which would legally prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with the personal injury action under the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityDemolition AccidentAppellate ReviewNassau CountyConstruction Injury
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 8,531 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