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

Diaz v. Rosbrock Associates Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Eduardo Londono Diaz, an employee of New Rochelle Hotel Association (NRHA), sustained injuries while working at the Ramada Plaza Hotel. He commenced an action against Rosbrock Associated Limited Partnership (Rosbrock), the landowner, alleging violations of the Labor Law. Rosbrock, which leased the land to NRHA, moved for summary judgment, arguing that NRHA and Rosbrock were effectively the same entity for Workers' Compensation Law purposes due to identical general and limited partners, thus precluding a lawsuit against the landowner under exclusive remedy provisions. The court granted Rosbrock's motion for summary judgment, finding that despite being separately maintained for tax and legal compliance, the identical partnership makeup rendered them a single entity for workers' compensation, thereby dismissing Diaz's action.

Limited Partnership LiabilityExclusive Remedy DoctrineIdentity of EntitiesLandowner Employer StatusSummary Judgment GrantLabor Law ViolationsPartnership LawStatutory DutyWorkplace Injury ClaimBoiler Maintenance
References
10
Case No. Index No. 300908/17 Appeal No. 3021 Case No. 2023-04605
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Robles-Martinez v. Partnership 92 West, L.P.

Plaintiff Joshua Robles-Martinez, a delivery worker, sustained injuries when a sidewalk hatch door struck his head while making a delivery to Columbus Gourmet Food. Plaintiff alleged a dangerous condition stemming from a building facade modification that prevented the door from fully opening. Defendant landlord Partnership 92 West, L.P.'s motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims for contractual indemnification against tenant Columbus Gourmet Food, was denied. Partnership failed to demonstrate the modification was tenant-created or a nonstructural defect, and its indemnification clause did not cover its own potential negligence. Additionally, third-party defendant Fischer Foods of New York, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning plaintiff's 'grave injury' claim, which involved a traumatic brain injury and alleged permanent unemployability. The Supreme Court's order was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationLandlord LiabilityTenant LiabilityPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDelivery Worker InjurySidewalk Hatch DoorFacade ModificationGrave Injury Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sajta v. Latham Four Partnership

Plaintiff Peter J. Sajta, a maintenance employee of Avion Management Corporation, was injured by a falling block of ice while spreading calcium chloride on a commercial property owned by defendant Latham Four Partnership. Sajta had previously attempted to dislodge icicles from an awning above an overhead door. Latham moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, citing insufficient evidence from the defendant regarding supervision, control, or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), determining these statutes were inapplicable because the plaintiff's work did not involve elevation-related risks or activities impacting structural integrity.

Falling Ice HazardSummary Judgment AppealLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Common Law NegligenceWorksite SafetyElevation Related RisksConstruction ActivitiesIndustrial Code Violations
References
13
Case No. CA 13-01811
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2014

BISH, ROBERT v. ODELL FARMS PARTNERSHIP

Plaintiff Robert Bish, a cement truck driver, sustained injuries while cleaning his employer's truck on property owned by defendant Odell Farms Partnership. Bish filed a Labor Law action, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed the lower court's order, granted the defendant's motion in its entirety, and dismissed the complaint. The court held that routine cleaning of a cement truck was not an activity protected under Labor Law § 240 (1) as it did not constitute "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure," nor was it "construction work" under Labor Law § 241 (6). A dissenting opinion argued that issues of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff was engaged in protected construction activity.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyWorker InjurySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewCement Truck CleaningStatutory InterpretationActivity CoverageRoutine Maintenance ExclusionPersonal Injury Lawsuit
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2004

Foote v. Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership

Glenn A. Foote, Jr., an employee, sustained injuries when a wood chip stacker collapsed at the Lyonsdale Cogeneration Facility. He and his wife filed a lawsuit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 against the facility owners (Lyonsdale Energy Limited Partnership and Moose River Energy, Inc.), the stacker designer (American Bin & Conveyor), and the procurer (Wolf & Associates). The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to Lyonsdale and Wolf, dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Lyonsdale and the negligence claim against Wolf. On cross-appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable as the injury resulted from the structure's collapse rather than the failure of a safety device. The court also upheld the dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolf due to the absence of a duty to the plaintiff, and found a question of fact existed regarding Lyonsdale's supervisory control, thus denying summary judgment to Lyonsdale on other claims.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceElevated Work SiteScaffold LawWood Chip StackerDesign DefectSupervisory ControlContractual Obligation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plains/Anadarko-P Ltd. Partnership v. Coopers & Lybrand

The case involves three limited partnerships suing Coopers & Lybrand over allegedly false financial statements audited by Coopers for Trans-Western Exploration, Inc. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim concerning fraud by accountants, finding the pleading sufficient. However, the second claim, mirroring the first with additions of aiding and abetting and fiduciary duty, was dismissed as redundant. Five pendent state law claims were also dismissed due to discretionary pendent jurisdiction. Finally, an eighth claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was dismissed for insufficiency, as the auditing engagement did not satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering. The plaintiffs were ordered to serve and file an amended complaint.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b)Securities fraudSection 10(b) claimAiding and abettingFiduciary dutyPendent jurisdictionState law claimsRICO ActAuditing engagement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Auqui v. Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership

Jose Verdugo, a food service deliveryman, was injured in December 2003 and received workers' compensation benefits. He also initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Seven Thirty One Limited Partnership. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) later determined that Verdugo's disability ended on January 24, 2006, leading to the termination of his benefits. Subsequently, the defendants in the personal injury action sought to preclude Verdugo from relitigating the duration of his disability, arguing collateral estoppel based on the WCB's finding. The court, affirming the WCB's decision, reversed the Appellate Division's order, granting the defendants' motion to preclude further litigation on disability beyond the WCB's determined date, finding the issue was fully and fairly litigated.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPersonal Injury ActionCollateral EstoppelAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardDisability DurationMedical TreatmentLost EarningsMedical ExpensesGuardianship Proceeding
References
6
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08125 [133 AD3d 470]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2015

Acosta v. Gouverneur Court Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff, Jesus Acosta, a maintenance worker, alleged he fell in a boiler room of a building owned by Gouverneur Court Limited Partnership when his pants caught on a brace or bracket. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence claim. The court found that the condition was not defective, but rather open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that the condition was plainly observable and did not constitute a trap or snare.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOpen and ObviousInherently DangerousAppellate ReviewMaintenance WorkerBoiler RoomFall AccidentCommon-Law
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06588 [210 AD3d 1496]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2022

Green v. Evergreen Family Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Bradford Green initiated an action to recover damages for injuries sustained from a fall off an A-frame ladder while working on a car wash overhead door. The defendants, Evergreen Family Limited Partnership, moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff's activity was not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) or that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability and dismissal of the sole proximate cause defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but granted plaintiff's motion on the 14th affirmative defense. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding triable issues of fact concerning whether the work constituted routine maintenance or a repair, and the adequacy of the safety device provided, thus precluding a sole proximate cause defense as a matter of law.

Ladder FallWorkplace InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety EquipmentAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyMaintenance vs. RepairPersonal Injury
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 138 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