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

Candela v. New York City School Construction Authority

Plaintiff Calogero Candela sustained injuries when a window sash fell on him at a construction site. He brought a claim under Labor Law § 200 against the New York City School Construction Authority, Spacemaster Building Systems, LLC, and TDX-Becom. A jury initially found in favor of the defendants, implicitly concluding they lacked notice of the defective windows. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the jury had no reasonable basis to reject testimony indicating the defendants, particularly Spacemaster, had actual or constructive notice of widespread window balance system defects prior to the accident.

Construction AccidentWindow DefectLabor LawPremises LiabilityNoticeJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNegligenceWorkplace SafetyFalling Object
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedro Gonzalez & Maria Gomez v. Vatr Construction LLC & All American Roofing & Construction

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a general contractor, VATR Construction, LLC (VC), and a subcontractor, All American Roofing & Construction, in a lawsuit brought by the Estate of Roger Alexis Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a roofer, suffered fatal injuries after falling from a roof due to not using safety equipment. The Estate alleged negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se against VC and All American. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither VC nor All American owed a contractual duty or exercised actual control over Gonzalez's work or safety, and that OSHA regulations do not establish negligence per se in this context. Furthermore, the court rejected the Estate's argument that Gonzalez was a third-party beneficiary of upstream contracts, concluding that summary judgment was properly granted on all claims.

Construction AccidentFatal InjuryRooferFall ProtectionSafety EquipmentNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horowitz v. New York City School Construction Authority

Petitioner Elizabeth Horowitz was injured in May 1995 at a construction site in Brooklyn. Initially, she served notices of claim on the City of New York and the New York City Board of Education, unaware of the New York City School Construction Authority's (SCA) involvement. She learned of SCA's role in March 1996 and subsequently sought leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner argued that SCA had actual knowledge due to its involvement in the construction and its failure to post required identifying signage, which prevented her from timely identifying the correct municipal entity. SCA opposed, citing lack of actual knowledge and prejudice. The court granted the petitioner's application, reasoning that SCA was estopped from asserting an untimely claim defense because its non-compliance with legal signage requirements created the initial difficulty in identifying the responsible party.

Late Notice of ClaimEquitable EstoppelMunicipal LiabilityPublic Authorities LawConstruction Site AccidentSignage ViolationsGovernmental ImmunityPersonal InjuryStatute of LimitationsActual Notice
References
4
Case No. 03-01-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

David Aston D/B/A Aston Landscape & Construction and Aston Landscape & Construction, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility

The case involves an appeal filed by David Aston d/b/a Aston Landscape & Construction and Aston Landscape & Construction, Inc. against the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility. The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the appellants failed to file a timely perfecting instrument. The trial court's judgment was signed on September 7, 2000, making the notice of appeal due by October 9, 2000. Appellants' Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Motion for New Trial were also filed past their respective deadlines. Despite a request from the Clerk for proof of timely filing, no response was received, leading to the dismissal.

JurisdictionAppeal DismissalTimelinessNotice of AppealMotion for New TrialFindings of FactConclusions of LawAppellate ProcedureTexasCourt of Appeals
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dow v. Silver Construction Corp.

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits in 2005, asserting lung disease caused by workplace exposure to asbestos while employed by Silver Construction Corporation in 1961. Silver alleged claimant was actually employed by its predecessor, Rizzi Associates. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge subsequently placed Rizzi on notice as a potential employer. On review, the Workers’ Compensation Board found insufficient evidence to place Rizzi on notice, removed them, and continued the case to resolve the employer-employee relationship. Silver appealed this interlocutory decision. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, ruling the Board's decision was interlocutory and not final, thus not appealable at this stage to avoid piecemeal review of the case's issues.

Workers' Compensation BoardInterlocutory DecisionEmployer LiabilityAsbestos DiseaseAppellate ProcedureDismissed AppealEmployer-Employee RelationshipNotice Requirement
References
5
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Astarita v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC

The legal text discusses Labor Law § 200, which imposes a common-law duty on owners and contractors to maintain a safe construction site for workers. This provision extends to owners, contractors, and their agents. The case elaborates that when a plaintiff's injuries arise from a hazardous condition on the premises, liability can be established under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 if the owner or contractor controlled the site and had actual or constructive notice of the danger. In the present matter, the defendants, Gilbane Construction Management Corp., Gilbane Building Company, and Gilbane, Inc., along with Flintlock Construction Services, LLC, failed to demonstrate a lack of control over the work site or absence of notice regarding the alleged dangerous condition. Therefore, their motions for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, as well as cross-claims for contractual indemnification, were denied.

Construction site safetyLabor Law § 200Common-law dutyDangerous conditionPremises liabilityActual noticeConstructive noticeSummary judgmentCross-claimsContractual indemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 8,300 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