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. 2016 NY Slip Op 00957 [136 AD3d 783]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Sanchez v. Metro Builders Corp.

Juan P. Sanchez initiated a personal injury lawsuit after falling three stories from a roof during snow removal, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against general contractor Metro Builders Corp. and subcontractor JMZ Builders, Inc. Metro, in turn, sought indemnification from JMZ and Sanchez's employers, Cocos Brothers. The Appellate Division ultimately granted Sanchez's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against Metro, finding Metro to be a statutory agent of the owner. Concurrently, Metro's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was granted, while its claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) were denied on the merits. Metro's indemnification claims against JMZ and Cocos Brothers were dismissed as untimely.

Workplace FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment GrantedGeneral ContractorStatutory AgentIndemnification ClaimsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafety Devices
References
20
Case No. CA 15-00615
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2016

ALATI, ANTHONY JOSEPH v. DIVIN BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Anthony Joseph Alati sued Divin Builders, Inc. and Michael Friery for injuries sustained from a ladder fall during construction. The causes of action included common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment and denied Divin Builders' cross-motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting parts of Divin Builders' cross-motion to dismiss plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) causes of action, except for specific NYCRR violations under 241(6), and affirmed the remaining parts of the order.

Ladder AccidentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndependent ContractorSupervisory ControlStatutory Violation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

Alati v. Divin Builders, Inc.

Plaintiff, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while installing a light fixture in a residence built by defendant Divin Builders, Inc. Plaintiff initiated a common-law negligence and Labor Law action, alleging violations of sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied the defendant's cross-motion for dismissal. On appeal, the higher court modified the order, granting Divin Builders, Inc.'s cross-motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Additionally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed, except for those parts based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (1) and (3) (iv). The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Ladder FallConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentNegligenceWorkplace SafetyIndependent ContractorAppellate ReviewStatutory ViolationPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03894
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Olivera-Perez v. B.A.M. Bldrs., Inc.

Macario Olivera-Perez sustained personal injuries during construction work. The Workers' Compensation Board determined Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, was his employer and awarded benefits. Olivera-Perez then filed a personal injury action against Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, and others. Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the Workers' Compensation Law provides an exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court denied this, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, granting the dismissal of the complaint against Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, based on the Workers' Compensation Board's prior finding and the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court also converted cross-claims against Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, into third-party causes of action.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityEmployer-Employee RelationshipMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentSupreme Court Order ModifiedCross-Claims ConversionJudicial DiscretionDocumentary Evidence
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pyramid Co. v. New York State Department of Labor

The petitioner, Pyramid Co., challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor that its frontage road project in Syracuse, largely constructed on state land to provide access to its shopping mall, was subject to prevailing wage laws under Labor Law § 220. Despite being deemed a "public works project" due to its public benefit and eventual state acquisition, the court found that the Department of Transportation (DOT) was not a party to the construction contract, and the highway work permits issued by DOT did not constitute "contracts for construction." This failed to satisfy a key condition of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, and the petitioner's CPLR article 78 petition was granted.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works ProjectContract RequirementHighway Work PermitsDepartment of Labor DeterminationAnnulmentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingConstruction ProjectState LandCarousel Center
References
9
Case No. CA 15-01122
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

KING, III, JOSEPH v. MALONE HOME BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph King III commenced this Labor Law action against Malone Home Builders, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a fall through an unguarded stairwell during construction. King moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and to dismiss the defendant's special employee defense, which claimed workers' compensation as the sole remedy. The Supreme Court conditionally granted King's motion for liability but denied the dismissal of the special employee defense, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division granted King's motion in its entirety, dismissing the defendant's special employee defense based on collateral estoppel from a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, and affirmed the partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability for the plaintiff.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentUnguarded StairwellPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02968 [205 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Vitucci v. Durst Pyramid LLC

Plaintiff Rino Vitucci sustained injuries after falling from a bathtub rim while installing a shower-curtain rod. The accident occurred because there was insufficient space to use an A-frame ladder and the bathroom was dimly lit, forcing him to stand on the tub's edge for leverage. The Appellate Division modified a prior Supreme Court order, affirming summary judgment for plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Durst Pyramid LLC and Hunter Roberts Construction Group, L.L.C., finding the bathtub rim served as an elevated work platform. However, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court also denied Fred Geller Electrical, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to factual issues regarding its responsibility for lighting, and granted Durst/Hunter conditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification cross claims against Geller. A dissenting opinion argued there was a factual dispute on whether Labor Law § 240 (1) applied, suggesting plaintiff could have performed the work from a lower elevation.

Labor Law § 240 (1) ClaimSummary JudgmentElevation-related RiskScaffold LawContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationBiomechanical Expert TestimonyRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate Cause
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Properties v. Pyramid Co. of Utica

The court granted a motion to vacate the March 18, 1984 Addendum to an earlier opinion, acknowledging it was based on a mistake of fact. The defendants, Pyramid Company of Utica and associated individuals, had filed counterclaims alleging Sherman Act violations by Interstate. Pyramid contended that Interstate made fraudulent misrepresentations to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in 1977 to prevent Pyramid from building a shopping mall and maintain Interstate's monopoly. Pyramid further alleged that Interstate later reversed its stance by joining a Joint Venture to successfully seek permission for a similar mall on wetlands. The court ultimately dismissed all counterclaims, finding Pyramid's antitrust allegations legally deficient as they did not satisfy the 'sham exception' to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The opinion clarified that mere misrepresentation of intent was not enough; proof of bribery, fraud, or subversion of the NYSDEC process was required, which Pyramid failed to provide.

Antitrust LawSherman ActNoerr-Pennington doctrineSham ExceptionCounterclaimsMotion to VacateFraudulent MisrepresentationEnvironmental ConservationShopping Mall DevelopmentWetlands
References
27
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08502
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Eddy v. John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant, John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc., and denying the plaintiff, Mark Eddy's, cross-motion for summary judgment. The case involved a construction worker who was injured after falling from a moving pickup truck while sitting on an unsecured cast iron grate. The court ruled that the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the fall from the truck's tailgate was considered a usual and ordinary danger of a construction site, not an extraordinary elevation hazard. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's decision to ride in a hazardous position on the tailgate, despite being warned, constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby precluding any liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6).

Labor LawWorkplace AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseElevation HazardPickup TruckUnsecured LoadAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prestige Builder & Management LLC v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

Prestige Builder & Management LLC, a New York subcontractor, initiated a diversity action against Triton Structural Concrete Incorporated, its surety Safeco Insurance Co. of America, and individual Triton employees Mary Anne Wilson, Elaina Gallegos, and Debra Peterson. Prestige sought $134,927.66 for payment bond claims and alleged fraud regarding work performed on a New York City Parks Department amphitheater project. The fraud claims asserted that Triton employees falsely certified forms to the Parks Department, indicating no outstanding payments to subcontractors, while Prestige was still owed funds. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fraud claims, citing lack of standing and failure to meet Rule 9(b) particularity requirements. The Court denied the motion, upholding the New York third-party reliance doctrine and finding Prestige's fraud allegations sufficiently particular.

Fraud claimsMotion to dismissSubcontractor paymentPayment bondThird-party relianceNew York lawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureContract disputeGeneral contractorSurety
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 189 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