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

Otero v. Cablevision

Plaintiff Norberto Otero sued Neiss Management Corporation, 82 Rockaway Limited Liability Company, and Cablevision of New York under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 200, and common-law negligence after falling from a defective ladder while installing cable television service. The court granted Otero's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Cablevision, finding Cablevision acted as a general contractor and the work constituted "altering" a building, with the defective ladder being a proximate cause. However, Otero's motion against Neiss and 82 Rockaway was denied due to a factual dispute over their authorization of the work, and his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against them were dismissed as they did not supervise or control the work. The defendants' cross-motion for indemnification from Cablevision was also denied due to insufficient evidence of Cablevision's negligence or direct supervision.

Labor LawScaffolding and LaddersSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityAltering a BuildingElevation RiskProximate CauseCommon-Law IndemnificationSafe WorkplaceIndustrial Code
References
47
Case No. OP 14-00510
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2014

EISENHAUER, JR.,, ROSCOE A. v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

Petitioner Roscoe A. Eisenhauer, Jr. initiated a proceeding under EDPL 207 to challenge the County of Jefferson's determination to condemn real property for expanding a public airport runway. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to demonstrate an actual public use or benefit for the taking and that the taking was excessive. The court rejected these contentions, affirming that a public benefit existed and that the condemnor has broad discretion in determining the scope of the taking. The petitioner also argued that the respondent did not comply with EDPL 207 (4) and SEQRA, but the court found no error in the respondent's environmental review process. Consequently, the Appellate Division confirmed the respondent's determination and dismissed the petition.

Eminent DomainPublic UseCondemnationAirport ExpansionJudicial ReviewSEQRA ComplianceEnvironmental LawProperty RightsAppellate DivisionGovernmental Discretion
References
16
Case No. 535730
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Birro Jr.

Claimant Joseph Birro Jr., a roofer, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that ruled apportionment did not apply to his workers' compensation award. Birro had two established work-related injury claims, one in 2006 and another in 2015, while working for Wolkow-Braker Roofing Corp. The 2006 claim, with State Insurance Fund as the carrier, resulted in an 18.75% schedule loss of use for his left leg. The 2015 claim, with New Hampshire Insurance Company as the carrier, led to Birro being classified as permanently partially disabled with a 59% loss of wage-earning capacity after surgeries. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge apportioned liability between the two claims, but the Board rescinded this. After further medical opinion, the WCLJ apportioned 80% to 2006 and 20% to 2015. The Board then modified this, finding apportionment inapplicable and placing full liability with New Hampshire for the 2015 claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly rejected the sole medical opinion on apportionment because its conclusions were not supported by the record, considering Birro continued working after the 2006 injury and did not have surgery until after the 2015 incident.

Workers' Compensation AppealApportionmentMedical Opinion RejectionSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseWork-Related InjuryOccupational HazardRooferAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03489
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2023

Ramones v. 425 County Rd., LLC

Plaintiff Sandro Ramones appealed an order denying his summary judgment motion and granting summary judgment to defendants 425 County Road, LLC, and Farrell Building Company, Inc., regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) violations. The plaintiff was injured while loading equipment onto a van after performing roofing and shingling work. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirming the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on that claim. The court found that the plaintiff's activity was ancillary to the alteration of the structure and protected under Labor Law § 240 (1), and defendants failed to show no safety device would have prevented the fall. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (f) did not apply as the van's roof was not a "working level above ground."

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyElevation RisksScaffolding AccidentsWorker FallStatutory InterpretationAncillary Work
References
12
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06460
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2024

Jr. v. Shults Mgt. Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Floyd C. Bacon, Jr. sustained injuries after tripping on an electrician's pull string at a worksite, leading to a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. Defendant Ahlstrom-Schaeffer Electric Corporation, an electrical subcontractor, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the amended complaint and cross-claims, and for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence, but the Supreme Court denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action against Ahlstrom, concluding it lacked supervisory authority. However, the court affirmed the denial of dismissal for common-law negligence and indemnification cross-claims, finding an issue of fact regarding whether Ahlstrom created the dangerous condition. The denial of sanctions for spoliation of evidence against Kessel Construction, Inc. and plaintiffs was also affirmed, as culpable intent was not established.

Construction AccidentTrip and FallLabor LawCommon Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentSpoliation of EvidenceSubcontractor LiabilityIndemnificationAppellate ReviewWorksites Safety
References
21
Case No. CA 11-00541
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2011

BYRD, JOSEPH v. RONEKER, JR., FREDERICK E.

The plaintiff, Joseph Byrd, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while cutting a tree limb at the home of defendant Frederick E. Roneker, Jr. Byrd initiated an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Roneker's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that Roneker, as a homeowner who did not direct or control the plaintiff's work, was exempt from liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Roneker exercised supervisory control or had notice of any dangerous condition, thus dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawPersonal InjuryLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNew York LawNegligencePremises LiabilityTree Trimming
References
35
Case No. ADJ9199320
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

VICENTE CEPEDA vs. JESUS RAMIREZ DBA JR COATINGS COMPANY; THE HARTFORD; and CLASSIC HOME IMPROVEMENT; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether Vicente Cepeda was an employee of JR Coatings (general employer) or Classic Home Improvement (CHI) (special employer) when he sustained an injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that JR Coatings was the general employer, despite JR Coatings' argument that it lacked control over Cepeda's work. The Board determined Cepeda, lacking a contractor's license, was an employee, and JR Coatings' involvement in facilitating his work under its license made it liable as the general employer. The dissenting opinion argued that CHI was the true employer and JR Coatings was merely a pass-through to circumvent licensing requirements, with no actual employment relationship.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentContractor's licenseRight of controlIndependent contractorLabor Code section 2750.5Insurance Code section 11663Subcontractor agreementEstoppel
References
7
Case No. 08-cv-3546 (ADS)(WDW)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2011

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

This civil rights case was brought by three African-American employees, Leo Smith, Jr., Benjamin Cannon, Jr., and John Christopher Smith, against the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation Sanitary District No. 2 and several individual defendants. Plaintiffs alleged a hostile work environment based on a noose incident and subsequent retaliation for filing EEOC complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims against the Sanitary District, Robert Noble, Michael McDermott, and Nicholas Dionisio, citing triable issues of fact regarding the severity of the environment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions. However, summary judgment was granted for defendant John Beyer and the Board of Commissioners on these claims. Retaliation claims by John Smith and Benjamin Cannon were dismissed, but Leo Smith's retaliation claim against Michael McDermott and the Sanitary District was allowed to proceed. All claims of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 were dismissed due to lack of evidence of agreement and the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983New York State Human Rights LawIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
43
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01453 [159 AD3d 674]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2018

Grasso v. New York State Thruway Auth.

This case involves four consolidated personal injury claims filed by Jerry A. Grasso, Jr., John Sullivan, Jr., Cathy Marl, and Louis Centolanza against the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA). The claimants alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, stemming from injuries sustained during a highway construction project. The Court of Claims initially granted NYSTA's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims based on collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) and for punitive damages, finding collateral estoppel applicable and punitive damages barred by sovereign immunity. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by denying the dismissal of claims alleging Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, concluding that collateral estoppel did not apply to NYSTA as a property owner and that NYSTA acted in a proprietary capacity, thus subject to tort liability.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Common-law NegligenceCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityGovernmental Function ImmunityProprietary FunctionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site Accident
References
33
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00720 [202 AD3d 433]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Galeno v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Fidel Galeno was injured in December 2012 after falling through a sidewalk shed roof while performing façade repairs on a building. The building was owned by Elk 22 Realty LLC, net leased to 20 West, and managed by ABS Partners Real Estate, LLC (collectively, the owner defendants). Everest Scaffolding, Inc. constructed the sidewalk shed, and Schnelbacher-Sendon Group, LLC (SSG) was hired for façade repairs, subcontracting work to Ramon Construction Corporation (Ramon), plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court denied conditional summary judgment for the owner defendants on contractual indemnification against SSG and Ramon, and granted SSG's and Ramon's motions for summary judgment dismissing contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification/contribution claims. The Supreme Court also denied Everest's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, granted dismissal of contractual indemnification claims against Everest by 20 West and ABS, and denied the owner defendants' cross-motion for conditional summary judgment against Everest. The Appellate Division modified the orders, denying SSG's, Ramon's, and Everest's motions to the extent they sought dismissal of 20 West and ABS's contractual indemnification claims against them, and otherwise affirmed. Issues of fact concerning proximate cause by Everest or Ramon remain, precluding dismissal of negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Everest. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against SSG were properly dismissed due to lack of negligence or supervision by SSG, while similar claims against Ramon were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySidewalk Shed AccidentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewProximate CauseConstruction Accident
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 470 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