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

Kittelstad v. Losco Group, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff's claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, and common-law negligence. The court addressed whether Jacobs and Clean Air were statutory agents of the property owner (the State). Jacobs's contractual obligations and superintendent's authority indicated comprehensive oversight, raising a question of fact regarding its agency status. Clean Air also retained significant supervisory authority over its subcontractor, Campbell, despite its claims to the contrary, thus establishing a question of fact regarding its control. Additionally, the court found Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (b) applicable and held that the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Clean Air should not have been dismissed due to questions of fact concerning dangerous conditions or notice. Consequently, Clean Air was not entitled to summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Campbell.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawStatutory AgentSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentSupervisory AuthorityNegligenceIndemnificationIssues of Fact
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2004

Bradley v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was injured after slipping on a water-accumulated elevated construction platform and falling approximately four feet. The defendants appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) claims, and granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The appellate court modified the order by denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, citing a question of fact regarding the absence of a required safety device. However, the court affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment concerning Labor Law § 241 (6), based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and questions of fact regarding notice of the slippery condition. Furthermore, the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action was also affirmed due to triable issues of fact concerning the defendants' notice of the dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentSlip and FallElevated WorkWorkplace SafetyNegligenceIndustrial CodeAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tafuro v. Transportation Displays, Inc.

The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal, denying the defendant's motion, reinstating the complaint, and remanding the case for further proceedings. A subsequent order granting reargument was dismissed as academic. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's testimony, along with affidavits from a co-worker and supervisor, were sufficient to establish a question of fact regarding whether the defendant created the dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff's injury. The presence of other individuals in the area merely created a question of fact concerning causation by the defendant.

Summary JudgmentReversedRemandedNegligenceDangerous ConditionCausationQuestion of FactPersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionSupreme Court
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2011

Nepomuceno v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a registered nurse, was injured after slipping on fruit outside her defendant employer's hospital while on her way to work. The motion court initially denied the defendant hospital's summary judgment motion, relying on the rejected 'dual capacity' doctrine and finding the action not barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. However, the appellate court reversed, stating that questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law regarding workers' compensation availability must first be determined by the Workers' Compensation Board. Therefore, the matter was remanded for the motion court to refer the case to the Board for a hearing to determine the availability of workers' compensation.

Workers' CompensationDual Capacity DoctrineSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySlip and FallJurisdictional DisputeRemandAppellate ReversalMotion PracticeEmployment Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blandin v. Marathon Equipment Co.

Dawson E. Blandin, an employee, died after falling into a waste compaction baler. His wife, as administrator of his estate, sued the baler manufacturer, alleging defective and negligent design due to inadequate safety features and lack of warnings. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that expert testimony raised sufficient questions of fact regarding whether the baler was reasonably safe and whether its design was a substantial factor in the death. Additionally, the court found questions of fact existed regarding whether the addition of a service platform by the employer constituted a substantial modification of the baler, negating manufacturer liability.

Workplace safetyProduct liabilityNegligent designDefective designSummary judgmentExpert testimonySubstantial modificationCausationForeseeabilityWaste compaction baler
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1999

Sanzone v. National Elevator Inspection Service, Inc.

This appellate court modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning summary judgment motions. The initial order had granted summary judgment to National Elevator Inspection Service (NEIS) but denied it for Millar Elevator Industries (Millar). The appellate court determined that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment to NEIS, as there was a question of fact regarding whether NEIS assumed a tort duty by conducting a City-mandated elevator safety inspection, potentially breaching it through negligence and causing plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Millar, citing unresolved questions of fact about Millar's role in the elevator's maintenance and repair at the time of the accident. Consequently, the order was modified to deny NEIS's motion and otherwise affirmed.

Summary JudgmentElevator SafetyNegligent InspectionDuty of CareTort LiabilityForeseeable HarmInsurance UnderwritingWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewQuestions of Fact
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Seligman

Plaintiff, an injured worker, sued her attorneys, Raymond J. Seligman and his law firm, for legal malpractice. The attorneys allegedly provided negligent advice by mistakenly informing her that she could not pursue a third-party claim for pain and suffering against the Gideon Putnam Hotel, believing she was employed by the hotel. By the time she consulted a different attorney, the statute of limitations for such a claim had expired. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to investigate her employment representation. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding questions of fact regarding the defendants' duty to investigate and their negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the attorneys owed a duty to investigate and that there was a question of fact as to whether they exercised appropriate care in performing that duty, thus precluding summary judgment for the defendants.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDuty to InvestigateNegligenceThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewAttorney ResponsibilityEmployment Status
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Puricelli v. CNA Insurance

Plaintiffs Diane Puricelli and Charles Hughes jointly sued their former employer, CNA, alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Human Rights Law, alongside intentional infliction of emotional distress. CNA sought to sever the plaintiffs' claims or hold separate trials, arguing they were misjoined and lacked common transactional origins or questions of law/fact. The court, applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a) and 42(b), determined that the claims were sufficiently related due to a common pattern of alleged age discrimination following CNA's takeover of Continental Insurance Company. Despite individual factual differences, the court found both a 'same transaction or occurrence' and 'common question of law or fact.' Consequently, the defendant's motion to sever the claims or conduct separate trials was denied, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed jointly.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSeverance of ClaimsJoinder of PartiesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 20(a)Rule 42(b)Human Rights LawEmotional DistressEmployer Liability
References
10
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06578
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2023

Schoonover v. Diaz

Plaintiff, a laborer, was injured during construction at a hotel when struck by a vehicle operated by a hotel employee. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence, moving for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing and denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) liability due to unresolved questions of fact regarding proximate cause. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing remaining questions of fact concerning defendants' supervisory control or knowledge of dangerous conditions.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentProximate CauseAppellate ReviewIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.29Worksite SafetyParking Lot Accident
References
25
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03642
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2021

Lorica v. Krug

Plaintiff Joseph Lorica, an employee of third-party defendant G & C Plumbing & Heating Corp., was injured in a fall at a construction site owned by defendant Jeremy Krug and managed by defendant The Krug Group Corp. Lorica and his spouse derivatively commenced an action against Krug and The Krug Group Corp., alleging Labor Law violations. The defendants then filed a third-party action against G & C seeking contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed the common-law indemnification claim but partially denied G & C's motion for summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim, finding questions of fact. G & C appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that G & C failed to meet its initial burden on summary judgment due to unresolved questions of fact regarding whether the parties had an indemnification agreement prior to the accident and whether a written agreement signed after the accident was intended to apply retroactively.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Labor Law § 240Construction Site InjuryThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewHold Harmless AgreementQuestions of Fact
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,642 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