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
Nov 24, 1997

Becerra v. City of New York

This case concerns an appeal regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The plaintiff, an employee of Volmar Construction, Inc., was injured on August 20, 1992, while engaged in demolition work at a City-owned building in the Bronx. He fell through an unsecured plywood platform on an elevated floor, with no safety devices provided to prevent a fall. The motion court initially denied the plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion on liability, citing factual issues regarding the fall and whether it constituted an elevation-related risk and proximate cause. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, holding that the unsecured plywood boards functioned as an elevated platform or scaffold, and their collapse constituted a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court emphasized that falls through temporary floors or scaffolds are covered under this section, thus granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Falling from heightUnsecured platformDemolition workConstruction accidentSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBronx CountyGravity-related hazardWorkplace safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1997

Gettys v. Port Authority

Plaintiff Herbert Gettys was injured in April 1994 after falling from a makeshift scaffold while performing electrical repair work in the World Trade Center basement. He sought partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied his motion. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that an elevation differential of even two feet is sufficient to fall under the protection of Labor Law § 240. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, and the case was remanded for an assessment of damages.

Scaffolding AccidentElevation DifferentialLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentAppellate ReversalConstruction Site SafetyWorld Trade Center Bombing
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2002

Masciotta v. Morse Diesel International, Inc.

Plaintiff James Masciotta, a carpenter employed by W. Property Resources, Inc. (Property), was injured in a construction accident involving a ladder. Morse Diesel International, Inc. (Morse), the project manager, moved for partial summary judgment seeking contractual indemnification from Property. The Supreme Court denied Morse's motion, but the Appellate Court unanimously reversed this decision. The court found that the indemnification provision in the subcontract between Morse and Property was enforceable, as Masciotta's injuries arose from Property's work and the use of the ladder, and there was no evidence of Morse's active negligence. General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 did not bar enforcement because Morse was held strictly liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) without its own negligence.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentLabor LawLadder FallSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorActive NegligenceStrict LiabilityGeneral Obligations Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madigan v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Plaintiff Arthur J. Madigan sustained injuries after falling from a reinforcing rod cage while working on a UPS delivery facility construction, leading him to file a Labor Law § 240 claim. The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claim. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff's work involved a significant elevation-related risk, thereby making Labor Law § 240 applicable. The court also dismissed the defendants' arguments regarding the unwitnessed nature of the accident, the availability of safety devices, and instructions not to walk on the cages. Furthermore, it established that UPS, as the overseeing entity and parent company of Newbany, was liable under the statute. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's order, granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, and denied the defendants' cross-motion.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafety DevicesElevation-Related RiskWorker InjuryNew York Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lockwood v. National Valve Manufacturing Co.

The court reversed an order denying the plaintiffs' application for partial summary judgment of liability based on a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The case involved a plaintiff who was injured while working on a steel beam approximately 100 feet above the ground when a 10-ton pipe fell from temporary supports. The plaintiff either fell or jumped to avoid the pipe, landing on a catwalk 25 feet below. The court emphasized that Labor Law § 240 (1) is designed to protect workers from falls or falling objects at elevated work sites and imposes strict liability on owners or contractors, regardless of their control over the work. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor LawElevated Work SiteFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentStatutory ViolationWorker InjuryConstruction AccidentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryPremises Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hopkins v. Cornerstone America

This case involves former insurance agents, led by Joseph Hopkins, suing Cornerstone America, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, and United Insurance Companies, Incorporated, for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), breach of contract, and common-law fraud and conversion. The central issue is whether the plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA. The Court found that most plaintiffs, except Chris Fox, were employees based on an economic reality test, considering factors like degree of control, relative investment, opportunity for profit and loss, skill and initiative, and permanency of the relationship. Consequently, the court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and partially granted and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. It dismissed Chris Fox's FLSA claims due to judicial estoppel and dismissed all claims against United Insurance and the plaintiffs' abandoned fraud and conversion claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorOvertime WagesRetaliationBreach of ContractJudicial EstoppelEconomic Reality TestCorporate VeilPublic Policy Violation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 1997

Bellafiore v. L & K Holding Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action brought under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff sustained injuries when a mobile scaffold spontaneously moved, causing it to tip over and crash. The plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, which the Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied. The appellate court subsequently reversed this order, granting the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The court determined that the plaintiff presented sufficient prima facie proof through affidavits from himself and a co-worker. The defendants' opposing evidence, which included statements from their president lacking personal knowledge, was deemed inadmissible hearsay and thus failed to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie showing.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)mobile scaffoldsummary judgmentliabilityhearsay evidenceappellate procedureconstruction accidentworkplace safetyNassau County
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1994

Klapa v. O&Y Liberty Plaza Co.

Plaintiff Janusz Klapa, an employee of United National Environmental Services Co., Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold lacking guardrails during asbestos removal from defendants' building. The IAS Court initially denied Klapa's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling he failed to prove the absence of guardrails was the proximate cause, despite acknowledging a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed this decision. The Appellate Division determined that Klapa had established a prima facie case of defendants' failure to provide adequate protection under Labor Law § 240 (1), and his testimony, even without detailing the exact cause of his fall, was sufficient given the irrelevance of contributory negligence. Consequently, the appellate court granted Klapa's motion for partial summary judgment on liability and dismissed the separate appeal concerning motions to reargue and renew as moot.

Scaffold AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseContributory NegligenceAsbestos RemovalAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryAbsolute Liability
References
5
Case No. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF) appealed a default judgment entered against it after failing to timely answer a lawsuit filed by Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson. Robertson sought to quiet title, asserting that Katie Nagle, who entered a reverse mortgage with RMF's predecessor, only possessed a life estate that terminated upon her death, rendering the mortgage void. RMF moved for a new trial, claiming a meritorious defense as a bona fide mortgagee without actual or constructive notice of Robertson's claim. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding RMF failed to factually support its claims of lacking notice. Subsequently, the parties settled, leading to the appeal's dismissal, though the court denied the request to withdraw its earlier opinion, citing its public importance.

Default JudgmentMeritorious DefenseBona Fide MortgageeQuiet Title ActionLife EstateReverse MortgageActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ProcedureMotion for New Trial
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 1993

Robinson v. NAB Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. This decision was subsequently reversed on appeal, resulting in the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment being granted. The appellate court found the plaintiff, a construction worker, was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to a defective scaffold-ladder lacking safety devices, which was the proximate cause of her injuries. The defendants failed to demonstrate any triable issues of fact. The court affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability for elevation-related risks, and factors like rain or minor testimonial inconsistencies do not negate the claim, nor is comparative negligence a valid defense.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold-ladder defectConstruction site accidentAbsolute liabilitySummary judgmentProximate causeComparative negligenceElevation-related riskAppellate decisionWorker safety
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 11,693 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