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
Feb 11, 2003

Reger v. Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc.

Conrad G. Reger, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while applying caulking to a roof at a restaurant operated by Harry's Harbour Place Grille, Inc. on premises leased from Harbour Place Marine Sales, Inc. Plaintiffs commenced an action for damages, asserting claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for both parties on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing a factual issue regarding whether Reger was involved in roof repair. The court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim because Reger was not engaged in construction, excavation, or demolition, and the Labor Law § 200 claim due to lack of evidence of defendants' supervision and control. The appellate court affirmed the order without costs.

Ladder FallSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor InjuryPremises LiabilityRoof Repair AccidentUnsecured LadderLabor Law ClaimsPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationConstruction Safety
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02965 [138 AD3d 927]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Jardin v. A Very Special Place, Inc.

Jean-Paul Jardin, injured in a construction site fall from an unsecured ladder, sued A Very Special Place, Inc. (VSP) and Kang Suk Construction, Inc. under Labor Law § 240(1). VSP sought contractual indemnification from Kang Suk and Trinity Interior Coatings, Inc. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Jardin's summary judgment motion due to factual disputes regarding his site authorization. However, the court modified a prior order, granting VSP conditional summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Kang Suk, finding VSP free from negligence. VSP's claim against Trinity was denied as their indemnification agreement was signed after the accident and lacked retroactive intent.

Construction Site AccidentLadder SafetyLabor Law ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementsRetroactive Contract ApplicationAppellate Division ReviewPersonal Injury Litigation
References
16
Case No. Index No. 28997/20; Appeal No. 5887; Case No. 2025-00685
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Roque v. 240 Lincoln Place LLC

Plaintiff Antonio Rosario Roque sought summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim after falling from a 12-foot A-frame ladder that slipped while he was working on it. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion. Defendant 240 Lincoln Place LLC appealed, arguing that Roque was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, citing his use of a closed A-frame ladder and the availability of an eight-foot ladder. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court found that the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact, noting Roque's valid reasons for his ladder choice and the instability of the alternative ladder.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallWorker SafetyDefendant LiabilityPlaintiff RightsNegligence
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05748 [198 AD3d 1120]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2021

Matter of Hawkins (A Place for Rover Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Benjamin Hawkins' claim for unemployment insurance benefits. A Place for Rover Inc. (Rover), an online platform for pet services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that found Hawkins to be an employee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, examined whether an employment relationship existed, focusing on the level of control Rover exercised over its service providers. The court determined that Rover did not exert sufficient control over the providers' services, methods, or outcomes, concluding that providers were independent contractors. Consequently, the Board's determination was reversed.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorGig EconomyPet ServicesOnline PlatformEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewLabor LawStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pavilion Place Associates

The case concerns a motion to transfer the Chapter 11 bankruptcy venue of Pavilion Place Associates, a Connecticut limited partnership, from the Southern District of New York to the District of Minnesota. The debtor's sole asset is a shopping center in Roseville, Minnesota. While the debtor's principal place of business, managerial decisions, and financial planning are in New York, the motion was brought by the Trustees of the Central Pension Fund, who are secured creditors. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Tina L. Brozman, acknowledged that venue was proper in New York. However, considering factors like the location of the assets, the proximity of the majority of creditors to Minnesota, and the need for economic and efficient administration of the estate, the court granted the motion to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota. The decision emphasized that improved real estate cases are often better administered in the district where the property is located.

Venue TransferBankruptcy Chapter 11Principal Place of BusinessInterest of JusticeConvenience of PartiesSingle Asset Real EstateShopping CenterSecured DebtUnsecured CreditorsJudicial Discretion
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

101 Fleet Place Associates v. New York Telephone Co.

This case concerns a dispute over environmental cleanup costs between a landlord, 101 Fleet Place Associates (Fleet), and its former tenant, New York Telephone Company (NYT). Gasoline leaked from deteriorated underground storage tanks at the property, leading to severe soil contamination. After NYT vacated the premises, regulatory agencies mandated cleanup, which Fleet completed and subsequently sued NYT for reimbursement. The appellate court found that a specific lease provision unambiguously placed the sole responsibility for complying with all laws and regulations, including cleanup, on the landlord. Additionally, Fleet's claim under the New York State Navigation Law was rejected because the lease agreement allocated ultimate responsibility to Fleet. Consequently, the court granted NYT's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Fleet's complaint.

Environmental LawLease AgreementProperty DamageGasoline LeakageUnderground Storage TanksSoil ContaminationLandlord-Tenant DisputeSummary JudgmentNew York LawNavigation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Batts v. IBEX Construction, LLC

The plaintiff appealed from two Supreme Court orders that granted summary judgment to defendants Sutton Place Group, LLC and IBEX Construction, LLC, effectively dismissing the plaintiff's personal injury complaint. The plaintiff sustained injuries from a slip and fall on a staircase. The appellate court found that Sutton Place Group, LLC failed to establish a prima facie case that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, and thus was not protected by the Workers' Compensation Law. Additionally, IBEX Construction, LLC failed to prove it did not create a dangerous condition on the staircase or that its actions were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's fall. As a result, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment orders against both defendants, allowing the plaintiff's claims to proceed. A cross-appeal filed by IBEX Construction, LLC was dismissed due to abandonment.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary Judgment AppealWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineContractor NegligenceHazardous ConditionProximate CauseComparative FaultAppellate Dismissal
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carol Artibee v. Home Place Corporation

Plaintiff Carol Artibee and her spouse initiated a personal injury action after Ms. Artibee was injured by a falling tree branch on a state highway. They sued a private defendant in Supreme Court for negligence and the State of New York in the Court of Claims for similar allegations. The central legal question was whether, in the Supreme Court action, fault could be apportioned to the State under CPLR 1601 (1), which limits a joint tortfeasor's liability for noneconomic losses under certain conditions. The Supreme Court initially denied apportionment against the State, a decision reversed by the Appellate Division, but ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded that such apportionment is not allowed. The Court reasoned that sovereign immunity constitutes a jurisdictional limitation on Supreme Court's competence to hear claims against the State, which falls under the 'unable to obtain jurisdiction' proviso of CPLR 1601 (1), thus preventing apportionment.

Apportionment of LiabilityJoint and Several LiabilitySovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal Injury LawNew York Court of AppealsCPLR Article 16State NegligencePrivate Party LiabilityContribution
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 563 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