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. 2020 NY Slip Op 04335 [185 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2020

Reynoso v. Ahava 750, LLC

Inez Reynoso appealed an order granting summary judgment to defendants Ahava 750, LLC (landlord) and Chem Rx Pharmacy Services, LLC (lessee/employer) in a personal injury action. Reynoso was injured during a power outage while working in a building owned by Ahava 750 and leased to Chem Rx. The Supreme Court dismissed claims against Chem Rx based on workers' compensation exclusivity and against Ahava 750 as an out-of-possession landlord. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that Chem Rx and Pharmerica Corporation established prima facie that Reynoso was Chem Rx's employee and received workers' compensation benefits, making them the exclusive remedy. The court also agreed that Ahava 750, as an out-of-possession landlord without retained control or contractual duty, was not liable.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentOut-of-Possession LandlordCollateral EstoppelPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewEmployment LawDuty of CareFall Accident
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00261
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2023

Arias v. 139 E. 56th St. Landlord, LLC

William Arias, a demolition worker, suffered injuries after falling 10-15 feet from a roof while cutting wooden beams. Despite his safety harness and lanyard catching him, he hit his head and sustained shoulder and back injuries. The incident occurred during demolition work for 139 East 56th Street Landlord, LLC (building owner) and Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC (general contractor). Arias's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability was denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's order, finding that the safety devices were inadequate to prevent injuries from the force of gravity, thereby granting Arias's motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1)Gravity-related harmSafety devices inadequateFall from heightDemolition workSummary judgmentAppellate reviewConstruction accidentPersonal injuryBuilding owner liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 1982

McCormic v. Smith

This case concerns a dispute between tenants and landlords, initiated by the tenants under common law and the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. A jury trial resulted in a judgment favoring tenants for damages and attorneys' fees, although the fee amount was not set. The trial judge subsequently set the attorneys' fees post-trial, prompting the landlords to appeal. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal, ruling that a motion for a new trial was required. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, clarifying that Rule 3(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure does not mandate a new trial motion for errors committed by the trial judge after a jury verdict and not directly involving the jury's actions or findings.

Attorneys' feesAppellate procedureMotion for new trialPost-trial proceedingsJury trialLandlord-tenant disputeUniform Residential Landlord and Tenant ActWaiver of issuesRule 3(e) T.R.A.P.Rule 59 T.R.C.P.
References
3
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 33402(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Brewster v. Five Towns Health Care Realty Corp.

The plaintiff, a maintenance worker, sought damages for personal injuries after slipping and falling on debris at a health care facility. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to the defendants, who were identified as out-of-possession landlords, thereby dismissing the complaint against them. On appeal, the order was affirmed. The appellate court concluded that the defendants, as out-of-possession landlords, were not liable as they had not retained control of the premises or were contractually obligated for maintenance and repairs. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a specific statutory violation or provide an evidentiary basis for further discovery.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilityOut-of-Possession LandlordSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceReal EstateNew York LawProperty Owner Liability
References
6
Case No. 709355/19
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2026

Gibbs v. New Ram Realty, LLC

Cecil Gibbs sued New Ram Realty, LLC, and KCM Realty Company, L.P., for personal injuries after slipping on a water puddle in a hotel room. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were an out-of-possession landlord and lacked notice of the hazardous condition. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that KCM Realty was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to repair, and New Ram Realty, LLC, did not create the condition or have constructive notice of the leak. The motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them was granted.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilityOut-of-Possession LandlordSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticePersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionHotel LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityLack of Notice
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bautista v. 85th Columbus Corp.

The case involves a plaintiff who suffered personal injuries after slipping and falling on a basement stairway accessed through sidewalk trapdoors, obstructed by a tenant-installed conveyor belt. The plaintiff sued the building owners and managers, alleging negligence and Building Code violations. The defendants, as out-of-possession landlords, moved for summary judgment, arguing they were not liable for tenant alterations or general unsafe conditions, and that the stairway was not a 'required exit' under the 1968 Building Code. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the stairway was not an 'interior stair' or 'required exit' and therefore the alleged defects did not constitute structural violations imposing liability on the out-of-possession landlords. The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOut-of-Possession LandlordBuilding CodeStairway AccidentConveyor BeltStructural DefectRequired ExitAdministrative CodePersonal Injury
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

THOMAS, PIA v. DUNKIRK RESORT PROPERTIES, LLC

Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for injuries sustained during employment at a hotel owned by defendant Dunkirk Resort Properties, LLC (Dunkirk Resort) and managed by her employer, nonparty S & K Hospitality, LLC (S & K). The Supreme Court erred in granting Dunkirk Resort's motion for summary judgment. The court rejected the out-of-possession landlord standard as applied by the lower court because no leasehold was created by the agreement between Dunkirk Resort and S & K; rather, it was a management agreement. Additionally, Dunkirk Resort's submissions raised a triable issue of fact regarding its out-of-possession landlord status. Furthermore, Dunkirk Resort failed to establish the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity provision, as triable issues of fact remain concerning whether Dunkirk Resort is the alter ego of S & K, given their distinct purposes, bank accounts, and tax returns despite shared members.

Summary JudgmentOut-of-Possession LandlordAlter EgoManagement AgreementLease Operating AgreementPremises LiabilityCorporate VeilEmployment InjuryAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of Fact
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 20027
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2020

159 W. 23rd LLC v. Spa Ciel De NY Corp.

The landlord, 159 West 23rd LLC, appealed a prior order concerning a commercial lease dispute with tenant Spa Ciel De NY Corp. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting the landlord summary judgment of possession and dismissing the tenant's affirmative defenses. The court found that the tenant breached the insurance coverage requirements of the lease by failing to maintain an umbrella policy and other required insurances. Arguments from the tenant regarding waiver and alleged statements by a former owner were deemed unavailing and inadmissible. The court concluded that the landlord had valid grounds for terminating the commercial lease due to the tenant's incurable insurance defaults and acted promptly in addressing the inadequate coverage.

Commercial LeaseSummary JudgmentInsurance BreachLandlord-Tenant LawLease AgreementAppellate TermNew York LawContract LawAffirmative DefensesUse and Occupancy
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2005

Morales v. D & A Food Service

In this case, an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed the dismissal of a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant Gamillo M. Santomero, III, a landlord. The plaintiff was injured while performing repairs for defendant D & A Food Service, the tenant, without the landlord's knowledge or consent, in violation of the lease. The court ruled that the landlord, an out-of-possession owner, could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the absence of a nexus between the owner and the worker. Precedent, including Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc., was cited to support the finding that an owner must have knowledge or consent of the work to be held liable, as the statute aims to place responsibility on those best able to control the workplace.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Out-of-Possession OwnerLandlord LiabilityLack of KnowledgeConsent to WorkLease ViolationLadder FallNexus RequirementAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Minjak Co. v. Randolph

A landlord initiated a nonpayment proceeding against tenants Randolph and Kikuchi for a loft space in Manhattan. The tenants counterclaimed for breach of warranty of habitability, partial constructive eviction, and sought punitive damages and attorney's fees due to severe conditions caused by landlord's renovations and a fifth-floor tenant's business, rendering two-thirds of the loft (music studio) unusable. A Civil Court jury awarded significant rent abatements and $20,000 in punitive damages, later reduced to $5,000, and $5,000 in attorney's fees. The Appellate Term reversed, holding constructive eviction required full abandonment and striking punitive damages. This court reversed the Appellate Term, affirming the doctrine of partial constructive eviction, reinstating the punitive damages award (as reduced by the Civil Court), and confirming the award of attorney's fees, with a minor adjustment to the rent abatement period.

Constructive EvictionPartial EvictionWarranty of HabitabilityPunitive DamagesAttorney's FeesNonpayment ProceedingLandlord-Tenant LawResidential LoftsBuilding RenovationsTenant Rights
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 694 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