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

Delishi v. Property Owner USA LLC

Plaintiff Haxhi Delishi sued multiple defendants after he slipped and fell at a construction site in New York County on November 14, 2005, while working for Collins Building Services, Inc. He alleged negligence against the named defendants for causing or allowing the dangerous condition (a piece of cardboard covering a metal pipe) or failing to warn him. Several defendants, including Stateside Contracting Co., Inc., Jordan Daniels Electrical Contractors, Inc., Property Owner (USA), LLC, HSBC North America, Inc., and Jones Lang LaSalle Services, Inc., moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims against them. Third-party defendant Collins also moved for dismissal of Jones Lang's third-party complaint. The court, presided over by Justice Jack M. Battaglia, denied all motions for summary judgment, finding that none of the moving parties had established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, partly due to issues with inadmissible deposition testimony and insufficient evidence regarding creation of the condition or notice of it.

Slip and FallConstruction Site InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationContributionAdmissibility of Deposition TranscriptsDangerous Condition
References
66
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02944 [205 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Dolcimascolo v. 701 7th Prop. Owner, LLC

This case involves an appeal by Michael Dolcimascolo against 701 7th Property Owner, LLC, challenging an order that granted defendants' motion to amend their answer and for summary judgment. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision allowing the defendants to amend their answer to assert a defense of release. However, the appellate court modified the order by denying the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding duress, fraud, and mutual mistake concerning the execution of two releases. The court emphasized New York's public policy protecting injured workers from coercive settlements before fully understanding their injuries, particularly when advised by employer-sent lawyers without independent counsel.

DuressFraudMutual MistakeRelease DefenseSummary Judgment MotionLeave to AmendAppellate ReviewInjured WorkersPublic PolicyTriable Issues of Fact
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03117
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2017

Trinajstic v. St. Owner, LP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied motions for summary judgment. The case involves Thomas Trinajstic, a laborer, who fell during a renovation project and sued St. Owner, LP, and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. under Labor Law § 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party claim for common-law indemnification against Pat Pellegrini Flooring Corporation. The court found questions of fact regarding whether dust created by Pellegrini's workers contributed to Trinajstic's fall, thus barring dismissal of the Labor Law claim. Furthermore, summary resolution of the indemnification claim was deemed premature due to conflicting evidence on the cause of the fall (dust vs. broken tiles) and the defendants' failure to demonstrate a lack of their own negligence.

Labor Law § 241(6)Summary Judgment MotionCommon-Law IndemnificationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site AccidentThird-Party LitigationWorkplace Safety RegulationsDust HazardPremises Owner LiabilityContractor Negligence
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07121 [188 AD3d 1292]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Villada v. 452 Fifth Owners, LLC

The plaintiff, Carlos Villada, was allegedly injured while working on a roof demolition project at property owned by 452 Fifth Owners, LLC. He was injured when a wheeled dumpster he was pulling up a plywood ramp tipped over. Villada commenced an action against 452 Fifth Owners, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court denied 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment dismissing these causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment. The court found that 452 Fifth established, prima facie, that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and did not have the authority to supervise or control the work. The cross-appeal by CBRE, Inc. was dismissed.

Personal InjuryRoof DemolitionSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReversalLabor Law ComplianceDangerous ConditionSupervision and Control
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2009

Vincente v. Silverstein Properties, Inc.

This case concerns a personal injury action where the plaintiff was determined to be a special employee of the defendants. This finding allowed the defendants to invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the evidence demonstrated the defendants, as the owner and property manager of the work site, supervised and controlled the plaintiff's work. Furthermore, the plaintiff's argument disputing the special employment relationship with the "River Place" defendants was rejected. This rejection was based on a property management agreement confirming that the supervisory staff of the property manager were also employees of the owner.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyAppellate AffirmationEmployment LawLabor LawProperty ManagementControl Test
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06165
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2023

Zapototsky v. Ascape Landscape & Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a personal injury action brought by Orest Zapototsky after he slipped on ice at an outlet mall. The plaintiff sued Ascape Landscape & Construction Corp., responsible for snow removal, and the property owners, Simon Property Group, L.P., and Premium Outlet Partners, L.P. The property owners, referred to as the Simon defendants, sought conditional summary judgment on cross-claims against Ascape for contractual indemnification, breach of duty to defend, and attorney's fees, which the Supreme Court denied. Ascape's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing these cross-claims was granted by the lower court. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the Simon defendants' motion, finding triable issues of fact regarding Ascape's contractual performance. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying Ascape's cross-motion, concluding that Ascape also failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the accident was unrelated to its services. Thus, the appeals court ruled that triable issues of fact remain concerning Ascape's obligations to indemnify and defend the Simon defendants.

Personal InjurySlip and FallIce Removal ContractContractual IndemnificationBreach of Contractual Duty to DefendAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewSnow Removal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

Steiner v. Benroal Realty Associates, L.P.

The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker, suffered a knee injury after stepping on a garbage bag while attempting to hook a dumpster. The plaintiffs initiated legal action against the property owner and site manager, alleging the existence of a dangerous and defective condition on the premises. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. This appellate court subsequently affirmed that decision, ruling that a defendant is not liable when a worker, aware of obvious employment hazards and possessing resources for safe conduct, performs the job incautiously.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySanitation WorkerObvious HazardAssumption of RiskAppellate DecisionNassau CountyKnee InjuryDangerous Condition
References
3
Case No. 21 MC 101, 04 Civ. 7272(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

In Re September 11 Property Damage

This opinion addresses the legal sufficiency of third-party actions filed by Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Silverstein), owners and developers of 7 World Trade Center, seeking indemnification and contribution. Silverstein, who was both a plaintiff and defendant in various lawsuits following the September 11, 2001, destruction of 7WTC, brought claims against OEM Design and Construction Defendants, Citigroup Design and Construction Defendants, and engineers Irwin Cantor and Syska. The court granted motions to dismiss from all third-party defendants. It found OEM defendants immune under the New York State Defense Emergency Act, Citigroup defendants protected by Silverstein's prior assumption of risk, and Irwin Cantor and Syska dismissed for failure to meet heightened pleading standards for licensed design professionals.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterProperty DamageBusiness LossThird-Party LitigationIndemnificationContributionMotions to DismissSDEA ImmunityAssumption of Risk
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Addison v. Meeks

The Town of Addison (plaintiff) initiated an action against a property owner (defendant) to secure a permanent injunction preventing interference with the public's use and the Town's maintenance of Miller Road. The Town also sought a declaration that Miller Road had become a Town highway under Highway Law § 189. The defendant appealed an order granting a preliminary injunction and the declaration. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, citing extensive evidence of consistent public use of Miller Road for over ten years by various individuals and entities. Furthermore, the court found that the Town had successfully demonstrated its dominion over the road through longstanding and unchallenged maintenance efforts, including grading, plowing, and drainage improvements.

Highway LawPublic UseTown HighwayProperty RightsInjunctionRoad MaintenanceAppellate DecisionSteuben CountyReal Property
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,316 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