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

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00714 [224 AD3d 1364]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2024

Triest v. Nixon Equip. Servs., Inc.

Paul Triest, an employee, sustained injuries while unloading a loaner alignment jack from a van owned by Nixon Equipment Services, Inc. Triest initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, determined that the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as the incident did not involve an elevation-related risk under the statute. However, the court erred in dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding unresolved factual issues regarding Nixon Equipment Services, Inc.'s control over the work and whether Triest was a volunteer. Consequently, the order was modified to reinstate these two causes of action.

Labor Law §240(1)Labor Law §200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkplace InjuryElevation-Related RiskControl of WorkVolunteer StatusAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2004

Cordani v. Thompson & Johnson Equipment Co.

This case concerns cross appeals regarding a negligence and strict products liability action arising from a July 1998 forklift accident. The unnamed plaintiff was injured by a forklift manufactured by Clark Equipment Company and leased by Thompson & Johnson Equipment Company, Inc., while employed by third-party defendant DeCrescente Distributing Company. The plaintiff alleged the forklift was defectively designed due to the lack of a backup alarm. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' summary judgment motions. The appellate court, applying the three-factor test from *Scarangella v Thomas Built Buses*, determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a material issue of fact. The court found DeCrescente was knowledgeable about forklifts, aware of optional safety features, and in the best position to assess the need for such features in its specific operation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granted summary judgment to the defendants, and dismissed the complaint.

Product LiabilityNegligenceForklift AccidentSummary JudgmentScarangella FactorsOptional Safety FeaturesDuty to WarnWorkplace SafetyIndustrial EquipmentDefective Design
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2002

DePalma v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The plaintiff's husband died after falling 35 feet from an I-beam while working on air conditioning equipment installation. He was operating a derrick and fell while untying a tag line. Safety harnesses were available at the site but were not readily accessible. The IAS court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing factual disputes regarding the provision of safety devices and proximate cause. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding no evidence that the decedent refused to use available safety equipment and confirming his actions were within the scope of his duties. The court also rejected the recalcitrant worker defense, emphasizing that a worker's mere negligence does not create a factual issue regarding causation if safety devices were not properly provided and constructed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityFall from HeightConstruction AccidentSafety DevicesProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseContributory NegligenceDerrick Operation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. 342 Property LLC

Defendant Flintlock Construction Services, LLC, a general contractor, hired Site Safety for site safety management. An unnamed plaintiff suffered an accident, leading to claims against Site Safety, including under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as well as contractual indemnification claims by Flintlock. Site Safety moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked control over the work site. The court found that Site Safety's role was primarily advisory, with limited authority to stop unsafe work, and thus it lacked the necessary control to incur liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. Additionally, the court dismissed Flintlock's contractual indemnification claim, noting the absence of evidence of negligence by Site Safety, which was a prerequisite for indemnification under their contract. The motion court's decision granting summary judgment to Site Safety was affirmed on appeal.

Summary JudgmentSite Safety ManagementGeneral Contractor LiabilityContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnityLabor Law § 200Negligence ClaimsControl of Work SiteAppellate DecisionConstruction Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mack v. Ford Motor Co.

The Supreme Court affirmed an order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff Robert Mack in a case brought under Labor Law § 240 (1). Mack sustained injuries after falling from a three-tiered scaffold that lacked a guardrail. The defendant argued that Mack was a recalcitrant worker for not using available safety equipment and that a waiver signed by Mack absolved them of liability. However, the court found no evidence that Mack refused to use safety equipment, distinguishing this from a recalcitrant worker defense. Furthermore, the court determined that the waiver was contrary to public policy as it undermines the protective intent of Labor Law § 240 (1), which places responsibility for safety practices on owners and contractors.

Scaffold fallLabor Law 240(1)recalcitrant workerwaiverpublic policypremises liabilityworkplace safetysummary judgmentappellate reviewguardrail
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reich v. Manhattan Boiler & Equipment Corp.

Joseph Kaban was injured in a 1972 automobile accident during employment. He received workers' compensation benefits, and he and his wife sued other parties, Thompson and Mazza, who then brought a third-party action against Kaban's employer, Manhattan Boiler & Equipment Corp. (Manhattan). Due to the insolvency of Thompson and Mazza, the Kabans' judgment went uncollected. In 1992, attorney Louis S. Reich, as an assignee, attempted to collect on the judgment from Manhattan using a Feldman-type loan agreement. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that applying the Feldman mechanism in cases where the third-party defendant is the plaintiff's employer directly conflicts with the public policy of workers' compensation exclusivity, which is the employee's sole remedy for workplace injuries. The Court dismissed the complaint, affirming that such arrangements cannot circumvent the limitations of an employer's liability for contribution.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityThird-Party ActionContribution ClaimIndemnificationLoan AgreementSatisfaction of JudgmentEmployer LiabilityPublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vielhauer v. Dick Corp.

Adrian Vielhauer, an electrician for Mateo Electric, suffered a severe eye injury on January 12, 1988, while working at a State Riverview Correctional Facility construction site in St. Lawrence County. He and his wife initiated legal action against an unnamed contractor, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law due to a lack of safe working conditions and proper safety equipment. The defendant contractor, whose responsibilities included civil and interior work, sought summary judgment, asserting it was not the general contractor and therefore bore no duty to provide safety equipment to Vielhauer. The Supreme Court granted this motion, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient admissible evidence to contest the defendant's claim of lacking general contractor status or control over safety provisions for the electrical workers.

Eye InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentNegligenceLabor Law ViolationsDuty to Provide Safety EquipmentGeneral ContractorAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionWorkplace Safety
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,516 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