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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03562 [229 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2024

Rivera v. 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP

Plaintiff Angel Roman Caguana Rivera appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff was injured while removing metal ductwork, approximately 10 to 12 feet above the floor, using an A-frame ladder without other safety devices or assistance. The ductwork fell, striking the plaintiff and the ladder, causing him to fall and lose consciousness. The court found that the defendant, as the building owner, failed to provide proper protection as mandated by Labor Law § 240 (1), establishing a prima facie case for the plaintiff. The defendant's arguments, based on uncorroborated hearsay reports and speculative expert testimony, were deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentUnsecured LadderFalling ObjectConstruction AccidentAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentDemolition WorkRenovation ProjectWorker Safety
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00951 [213 AD3d 555]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Francis v. 3475 Third Ave. Owner Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Benedict Francis appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against various defendants, and the granting of summary judgment to 3475 Third Avenue MM LLC dismissing the complaint. The appellate court found that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as his testimony indicated his injuries were proximately caused by the collapse of unsecured scaffold planks, leading to a 16-foot fall. The court rejected the defendants' argument that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, reiterating that a statutory violation precludes such a defense. Consequently, the court modified the order to grant plaintiff's motion on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against 3475 Third Avenue Owner Realty, LLC, Real Builders, Inc., and 3475 Third Avenue Housing Development Fund, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision, thus not needing to address the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Scaffold CollapseSummary JudgmentProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseStatutory ViolationConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ClaimProperty Owner Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Citicorp

In a personal injury action, a building maintenance worker sued the building's owner and sole tenant after slipping on snow and ice on the roof. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the tenant and denied it to the owner, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for further disclosure. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified. The action was dismissed against the tenant, finding the plaintiff was its special employee. The owner's motion for summary judgment was also granted, as the out-of-possession landlord was not responsible for general maintenance or snow removal, which was the tenant's sole responsibility, and the cause of the fall was not a structural defect.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeOut-of-Possession LandlordSnow and IceBuilding MaintenanceAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityTenant Responsibility
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 28137
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2018

Matter of Xerox Corp. Consolidated Shareholder Litig.

The case concerns a proposed transaction where Fujifilm Holdings Corp. would acquire a 50.1% controlling interest in Xerox Corp. for no cash payment to Xerox shareholders. Major Xerox shareholders, including Darwin Deason and several pension funds, sought preliminary injunctions, alleging that Xerox CEO Jeff Jacobson was conflicted during negotiations, prioritizing his self-interest in retaining his CEO position, and that the Xerox Board failed its fiduciary duties by approving a deal disproportionately favorable to Fuji. The court found a likelihood of success on claims that Jacobson breached his fiduciary duties and that the Board failed to properly supervise him, leading to a "cashless acquisition" for Fuji, which the court stated "enabled Fuji to 'take control of Xerox without spending a penny.'" Consequently, the court granted preliminary injunctions, enjoining the proposed transaction and mandating the waiver of Xerox's advance notice bylaw deadline to allow shareholders to nominate an alternative slate of directors, allowing shareholders a fair opportunity to consider nominations given the material, post-deadline changes and the egregious terms of the proposed control transfer.

Shareholder LitigationPreliminary InjunctionFiduciary Duty BreachCorporate GovernanceMerger and AcquisitionAdvance Notice BylawProxy ContestConflicted CEOBoard of DirectorsCorporate Control
References
20
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02569 [237 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2025

Delcid-Funez v. Seasons at E. Meadow Home Owners Assn.

The plaintiff, Edwin Delcid-Funez, suffered personal injuries after falling approximately 30 feet from a condominium roof while shoveling snow, which he was doing for his employer in response to a leak complaint. He initiated an action against Seasons at East Meadow Home Owners Association, Inc., and Einsidler Management, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Both the plaintiff and the defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied both motions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that triable issues of fact remain regarding whether the plaintiff was engaged in an enumerated activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) and whether his actions constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSnow ShovelingRoof FallPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityElevated Work SiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02626 [171 AD3d 474]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Antonio v. West 70th Owners Corp.

Plaintiff Jason Antonio claimed he was injured after slipping and falling on slippery stairs because he was directed to remove his boots while working. Defendants West 70th Owners Corp. and SEPI Realty, LLC moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants established prima facie that they did not exercise supervisory control over the means and methods of plaintiff's work. Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding apparent authority for the instruction to remove boots, and his own supervisor gave the ultimate direction. Furthermore, the record showed the stairs were not in a dangerous condition, as plaintiff testified they had no observable defects and he slipped solely due to wearing socks without boots.

negligenceLabor Lawsummary judgmentpremises liabilitysupervisory controlslip and fallhazardous conditionappellate divisionpersonal injuryrespondent
References
3
Case No. CA 12-00960
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

CIAPA, DANIEL J. v. MISSO, OTTO

Plaintiff Daniel J. Ciapa initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Otto Misso after a slip and fall incident during his employment at a pizzeria. Misso was both the owner of the property and the president and sole shareholder of 395 Shanley Corp., Ciapa's employer. The Supreme Court granted Misso's motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, confirming that under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6), the employer and co-employees are shielded from tort liability. The court found that Misso, as the sole shareholder and president, was essentially the same legal entity as the corporate employer for workers' compensation purposes, thus extending the exclusive remedy provisions to him.

Personal InjurySlip and FallWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityCo-employee ImmunityCorporate Alter EgoSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soles v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Dana Soles, an employee of Christa Construction, Inc., sustained a back injury on July 20, 1990, while manually carrying a 600-pound door frame up a building staircase at Kodak Park. He sued site owner Eastman Kodak Company under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, alleging permanent disability due to the lack of safety devices. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Soles' claims. The court found that Soles' injury did not involve a fall or being struck by a falling object, thus precluding liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Furthermore, the claims under Labor Law § 241(6) were dismissed because the cited Industrial Code sections were either too general or irrelevant to the accident's cause, and Labor Law § 200(1) claims failed due to a lack of evidence regarding Eastman Kodak Company's notice or supervisory control over the work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200 (1)Summary JudgmentGravity-related hazardMaterial hoistSupervisory authorityConstruction accidentWorkplace injuryThird-party action
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,626 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