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. 2024 NY Slip Op 01944 [226 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Ragusa v. Drazie's Farm II, LLC

The plaintiff, Matthew Ragusa, appealed an order denying his cross-motion to amend the complaint to add Drazie's Farm, LLC as a defendant and granting summary judgment to Drazie's Farm II, LLC on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply because Drazie's Farm II, LLC and Drazie's Farm, LLC were separate entities with potentially different defenses, thus not united in interest. Furthermore, Drazie's Farm II, LLC established that it did not own the property where the accident occurred and therefore could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)A-frame ladderfall from heightpremises liabilityrelation-back doctrinesummary judgmentlimited liability companyproperty ownershipadjoining properties
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03868 [206 AD3d 468]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2022

Gonzalez v. DOLP 205 Props. II, LLC

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff Christian Gonzalez had sought summary judgment on liability after sustaining injuries from a fall while working on stilts. Defendant DOLP 205 Properties II LLC also moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of negligence claims and contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Amick Construction Corp., as well as for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due to triable issues of fact concerning the scope of his duties and whether his actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Additionally, the Appellate Division denied DOLP's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract for failure to procure insurance claim against Amick, deeming it premature. The remainder of the Supreme Court's order, including the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against DOLP and the grant of contractual indemnification against Amick, was affirmed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardSafety DevicesContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceProximate CauseTriable Issues of FactAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06413
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Cunha v. Crossroads II

Evandro Cunha, a laborer, sustained personal injuries at a construction site when an excavator rolled over his legs. He sued Crossroads II, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on several Industrial Code provisions, specifically 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (k), 23-9.4 (h) (4), 23-9.4 (h) (5), and 23-9.5 (c). The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (h) (5), and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment regarding the other cited Industrial Code provisions.

Labor LawPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentExcavator AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety RegulationsPrima Facie CaseLiability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jean

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order adjudicating Billy Jean II. a neglected child. The respondents, Ray II. and Colleen II., are the child's parents. The neglect finding was based on multiple reports of inadequate guardianship, domestic violence, poor hygiene, and unsanitary living conditions, including an incident where Ray II. allegedly assaulted Colleen II. while intoxicated in the child's presence. The Family Court found the testimonies of the respondents and a witness to be incredible, and concluded that the child was neglected due to the parents' failure to provide proper care and supervision, compounded by alcoholism and domestic violence. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding, stating there was sufficient proof to sustain the neglect determination.

Child Neglect AdjudicationDomestic Violence ImpactAlcoholism in Parental HomeUnsanitary Living ConditionsInadequate Parental SupervisionFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewCredibility of WitnessesSufficiency of EvidenceChild Protective Proceedings
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06165 [153 AD3d 681]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2017

Guminiak v. VGFC Realty II, LLC

The plaintiff, an employee of A-Val Architectural Metal Corp., allegedly sustained personal injuries while working at a renovation site. The premises were owned by the City of Mount Vernon Industrial Development Agency and leased by the defendant VGFC Realty II, LLC (appellant). The plaintiff commenced an action against the appellant, alleging violations of Labor Law and common-law negligence. The appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Workers' Compensation was the exclusive remedy due to an alter ego relationship with the employer, and that it was not an 'owner' under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court denied the appellant's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the appellant failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding both the alter ego defense and its status as an owner or agent.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineOwner LiabilityAppellate PracticePremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2003

Peycke v. Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of DSA Community Publishing, was allegedly injured after a slip and fall on ice in an office parking lot. She initiated an action for personal injuries against Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc., the building owner, and A. Ciesinski Snow Plowing, Inc., the company responsible for snow removal. The Supreme Court denied Newport's motion for summary judgment but granted A. Ciesinski's cross-motion. On appeal, the cross-appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed. The appellate court modified the order, affirming the denial of summary judgment for Newport but denying A. Ciesinski's motion to dismiss Newport's cross-claim for indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation DefenseTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewNegligenceBuilding Owner Liability
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02986 [138 AD3d 981]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Vitale v. Astoria Energy II, LLC

Daniel Vitale, a surveyor, was injured when his leg fell through an opening in a rebar grid at a construction site owned by Astoria Energy II, LLC, and managed by SNC-Lavalin Constructors, Inc. Vitale and his wife sued, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6) (predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7[b]), and 200. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion regarding Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), while denying the remainder of the cross-motion as untimely. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The court found that the rebar grid openings did not constitute an elevation-related hazard under Labor Law § 240(1) or hazardous openings under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b) because they were too small to permit a complete fall through. The denial of the remaining part of the defendants' cross-motion due to untimeliness was also upheld.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHazardous OpeningsElevation-Related HazardTimeliness
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 1998

Cataudella v. Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc.

Plaintiff Alfred Cataudella sought damages for personal injuries, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc., and Elm Management Co. moved for summary judgment to dismiss this claim, which was initially granted but later denied by the Supreme Court upon the plaintiffs' successful motion for renewal and reargument. On appeal, the higher court modified the lower court's decision, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the plaintiff's injuries were not from an elevation-related hazard. Consequently, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' motion for renewal and reargument, thus effectively granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Furthermore, the third-party defendant Walcat Plumbing and Heating Corp.'s motion to vacate an order of default was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppealLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related HazardDefault JudgmentVacate DefaultProcedural LawNew York LawAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00939 [213 AD3d 541]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Malan v. FSJ Realty Group II LLC

Plaintiff Manuel Malan appealed a judgment dismissing his Labor Law claims against FSJ Realty Group II LLC and Vartel NY Construction Corp. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's judgment, reinstating Malan's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against FSJ and Vartel, and granting him partial summary judgment on the § 240 (1) claim. The court found Malan established prima facie entitlement as he was struck by a cement hose dropped from an elevated level at a construction site. However, his cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 claim against S&S Concrete Pumping Corporation was denied due to reliance on hearsay evidence, though the dismissal of that claim was deemed unwarranted. The panel otherwise affirmed portions of the original judgment and reinstated third-party claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentFalling ObjectPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewCement HoseWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityThird-Party Claims
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02008 [237 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Hartrum v. Montefiore Hosp. Hous. Section II Inc.

Plaintiff Kyle Hartrum, an employee of Electronic Service Solutions, Inc. (ESS), sustained severe arm lacerations while removing communications equipment from a building roof owned by Montefiore Hospital Housing Section II Inc. The accident occurred when a piece of sheet metal being hand-hoisted swung and struck him. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, granting Hartrum summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Monte Housing, SBA Site Management, LLC, Flo TV Incorporated, and KMB Design Group, LLC. The court also dismissed Hartrum's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against all defendants and granted several contractual indemnity claims among the parties, including Montefiore, SBA, Flo, KMB, and ESS.

Labor Law § 240(1) LiabilitySafe Place to WorkSummary Judgment GrantContractual IndemnificationConstruction Site AccidentHoisting SafetyAppellate Division ReviewLessor/Sublessor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkNegligence Dismissal
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 246 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