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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06187 [233 AD3d 761]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Jaimes-Gutierrez v. 37 Raywood Dr., LLC

The plaintiff, Manuel Jaimes-Gutierrez, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which denied his motion for summary judgment on liability for violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. Jaimes-Gutierrez sustained injuries after falling from pull-down attic stairs while installing an alarm system at a construction site. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, finding that the pull-down attic stairs served as a safety device under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that their failure violated Labor Law § 241 (6) by not meeting safety specifications under 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (1). Consequently, the Appellate Division granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on these Labor Law violations and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss those specific causes of action, affirming the remainder of the order with costs to the plaintiff.

Labor LawScaffold LawLadder AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilityAttic Stairs
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gutierrez v. Rhea

Carlos Gutierrez sought to succeed to his late mother's tenancy as a remaining family member (RFM) in an NYCHA apartment. His mother, Amparo, had requested to add Carlos to her lease in 2004, but NYCHA failed to process the application, despite Carlos living there and being listed on income affidavits. NYCHA later denied Carlos RFM status citing a 1996 burglary conviction, without notifying Amparo or Carlos, or providing an opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation, violating its own rules and due process. The court annulled NYCHA's determination, finding it unsupported by substantial evidence and noting the agency's procedural failures. The case was remanded to NYCHA for reconsideration of whether Carlos currently poses a threat to other tenants, acknowledging his sustained psychiatric stability and sobriety.

Remaining Family MemberSuccession RightsPublic HousingDue Process ViolationCriminal HistoryRehabilitation EvidenceAdministrative Agency RulesArbitrary and CapriciousAnnulment of DeterminationRemand for Reconsideration
References
7
Case No. CV-23-1582
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Rosa Romero

Claimant, Rosa Romero, sustained work-related injuries in 2015, including to her right knee, head, neck, and back. She was classified with a permanent partial disability but initially denied awards due to a failure to demonstrate attachment to the labor market. Following a change in case law, claimant sought a Schedule Loss of Use (SLU) award for her right leg, supported by her treating physician's opinion of a 65% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied this request, citing prior findings and the absence of a prior SLU application. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, ruling that since no initial award was made based on the nonschedule classification, claimant is entitled to an SLU award for her permanent partial impairments. The case has been remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsWage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentRight Knee InjuryMedical ImprovementAppellate ReviewRemittalCase Law Change
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosa v. Astrue

Ludina Rosa sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision to deny her claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Rosa had a complex administrative history, including multiple SSI applications and a prior decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finding her disabled for a specific period but not for the period prior to October 1, 1986. The Commissioner moved to dismiss Rosa's complaint challenging the ALJ's pre-1986 disability finding. The court, presided over by a United States Magistrate Judge, reviewed the Commissioner's motion and found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial medical evidence, including findings from various doctors indicating Rosa's capacity for light work. Therefore, the Commissioner's motion to dismiss was granted.

Disability benefits appealSocial Security AdministrationSSI benefits denialFederal court reviewAdministrative Law Judge decisionResidual functional capacityMedical vocational guidelinesTreating physician rule exceptionSubstantial evidenceLight work capacity
References
20
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00361
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2020

Gutierrez v. 610 Lexington Prop., LLC

Plaintiff Flavio Gutierrez was injured when he lost control of a heavy concrete form being passed to him from workers on a scaffold, causing him to fall backward. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The court held that the presence of a nail in the form or the exact weight of the material was irrelevant to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). It was also determined that it was not the plaintiff's responsibility to seek additional help after his partner was called away.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentScaffold LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityFall from HeightLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionNegligenceMaterial Hoisting
References
5
Case No. 106 SSM 16
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

The Matter of Rosa Rizzo v. Thomas P. DiNapoli

Rosa Rizzo, a police officer, appealed a decision denying her accidental disability retirement benefits after she sustained a finger injury when a heavy metal door, known to slam automatically, was blown shut by a gust of wind. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that an injury resulting from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event is not an accidental injury, especially since Rizzo was aware of the door's tendency to slam. The court concluded that the known condition was a risk of the worksite but not the cause of a compensable accident under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Judge Wilson dissented, arguing that the incident was an accident by common sense definition, criticizing the "reasonably anticipated" doctrine and the inconsistent application of the law, and calling for legislative action to clarify the statutory scheme for disability benefits.

Police OfficerAccidental Disability RetirementWorkplace InjuryGust of WindDefective DoorOrdinary Employment Risk"Unexpected Event" Doctrine"Reasonably Anticipated" StandardNew York Court of AppealsDissenting Opinion
References
40
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08475 [156 AD3d 418]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Gutierrez v. 451 Lexington Realty LLC

Plaintiff Pedro Gutierrez suffered injuries when a heavy reel of electrical wire, weighing between 500 to 1,000 pounds, fell and struck his foot while being loaded onto a van at a construction site. He moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which the Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision, granting plaintiff's motion. The court found that plaintiff established liability due to the absence of an adequate safety device, dismissing defenses related to the availability of a forklift or claims of plaintiff being a recalcitrant worker, as no instruction to use alternative equipment was given. It further ruled that the loading activity, despite not being actual construction work, fell within the scope of the construction project for Labor Law § 240 (1) purposes.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentFalling Object InjurySummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate CauseThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gutierrez v. Henoch

Glennys Gutierrez, a former phlebotomist and medical assistant, brought an action against her co-worker Angelo Gelpi and employer Dr. Avraharn Henoch under Title VII, alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory termination. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where claims against Gelpi were dismissed. The court found Gutierrez's allegations of sexual harassment to be without merit, citing a lack of corroborative evidence and establishing that Gelpi was a co-worker, not a supervisor. Furthermore, the court determined that Gutierrez voluntarily resigned, contradicting her claim of retaliatory termination. Ultimately, the court resolved credibility issues in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint on the merits.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoDiscriminationBench TrialEmployee MisconductEmployer LiabilityCo-worker Harassment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gutierrez v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, Hispanic-American NYPD detectives Roland Gutierrez, Frankie Rosado, Rene Canela, and David Flores, filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, the NYPD, and supervisors Raymond Kelly, Stephen Kennedy, Kevin Moroney, and Raymond Rooney. They alleged employment discrimination based on race and national origin, retaliation, and hostile work environment. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court dismissed all claims against the NYPD as a non-suable entity and Section 1985 conspiracy claims. Title VII failure-to-promote claims for all plaintiffs and many other individual discrimination claims (e.g., denial of cash overtime, deflated evaluations, denial of transfers) were dismissed. However, Title VII claims for denial of investigative overtime for Rosado, Canela, and Flores, and Gutierrez's retaliation claim for disciplinary actions survived. Retaliation claims for Rosado, Canela, and Flores regarding reassignment of arrests also survived. Importantly, the hostile work environment claim survived for all plaintiffs. Section 1981 and Section 1983 claims against the City of New York and individual defendants in their official capacities were dismissed due to lack of municipal policy, but these claims against individual defendants in their individual capacities were denied dismissal.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983Municipal Liability
References
91
Showing 1-10 of 235 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