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. 2016-05-0242
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2016

Sevilla-Palma, Norvin v. Wauford Air Conditioning, Inc.

Norvin Sevilla-Palma, an HVAC helper, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for an eye injury sustained while drilling without eye protection at Wauford Air Conditioning, Inc. Mr. Sevilla claimed his supervisor told him to hurry and not wear glasses, and that no safety equipment was provided. The employer, Wauford Air Conditioning, Inc., contended that Mr. Sevilla's willful failure to use a safety device barred his claim, citing prior similar injuries and available safety equipment. Judge Dale Tipps found Mr. Sevilla had actual notice of the safety rule, understood the danger, and had no valid excuse for non-compliance, denying his request for benefits. The matter is set for an Initial (Scheduling) Hearing.

Workers' CompensationEye InjurySafety ViolationEmployer LiabilityWillful MisconductExpedited HearingCorneal AbrasionSafety DeviceDenial of BenefitsTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24170
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2004

Kennedy v. Pine Hill Coffee Serv.

Gerald Kennedy, an employee of Sahlem's Roofing, was injured on February 5, 2001, while replacing a roof on a commercial building owned by James DeMarco and occupied by Pine Hill Coffee Services, Inc. Kennedy fell about 9-10 feet due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate safety equipment. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), asserting absolute liability. Defendants argued Kennedy was a recalcitrant worker and that a co-employee, Dorian, served as a 'safety device,' and Kennedy's failure to wait for Dorian caused the accident. The court, however, ruled that a co-employee cannot be considered a 'safety device' under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that worker negligence is irrelevant for absolute liability. The court found that the absence of a safety device was the proximate cause of Kennedy's injuries, thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1)Absolute liabilitySafety devicesElevation-related hazardRecalcitrant worker defenseProximate causePartial summary judgmentRoofing accidentCo-employee as safety deviceStatutory interpretation
References
7
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
Feb 22, 1989

Berrios v. 1115 Fifth Avenue Corp.

Ricardo Berrios, an employee of Opal Window Cleaning Company, suffered injuries from a four-story fall while cleaning a window. He initiated a lawsuit against the building owner, 1115 Fifth Avenue Corporation, and its managing agent, Douglas-Elliman, Gibbons & Ives, who subsequently impleaded Opal Window Cleaning Company and the apartment residents, the Heironimuses. A jury determined that Berrios was 100% responsible for his injuries due to his failure to wear a provided safety belt, which was found to be in good condition. On appeal, the core issue was whether the owner and agent were liable under Labor Law § 202 for Berrios's failure to use safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, clarifying that while Labor Law § 202 mandates owners to provide safe means, it does not extend responsibility to ensure the worker's utilization of such safety equipment.

Window Cleaning AccidentLabor Law 202Safety BeltPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationOwner LiabilityAgent LiabilityEmployer LiabilityThird-Party LiabilityComparative Negligence
References
3
Case No. 3-92-522-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1993

Lane Denton v. Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association

Appellant Lane Denton sued the Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association (DPSOA) and others for wrongful termination and various torts after his employment as Executive Director was terminated. Denton invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during discovery, as he was also under criminal indictment for misappropriation of DPSOA funds. The district court dismissed his civil suit for failure to comply with discovery. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in dismissing the cause without applying the Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis test for offensive-use waiver of privilege, and also found the dismissal to be an excessive sanction given Denton's legitimate assertion of his constitutional privilege and the availability of less burdensome remedies like abatement.

Fifth Amendment privilegeSelf-incriminationDiscovery sanctionsAbatement of civil actionWrongful terminationDue processOffensive use waiverTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 215Appellate reviewCivil procedure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2014

Marquez v. L & M Development Partners, Inc.

The plaintiff, an injured laborer, filed a personal injury lawsuit following a fall at a construction site, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence against multiple parties, including Pro Safety Services, LLC (PSS), a safety consultant. PSS sought summary judgment to dismiss claims against it and for judgment on its own cross-claims. The Supreme Court initially denied PSS's motion. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court granted PSS summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law and common-law negligence causes of action against PSS, and also dismissed various contribution and common-law indemnification claims against PSS, finding PSS lacked supervisory control. However, the denials of PSS's motion concerning contractual indemnification and failure to procure additional insured status were affirmed due to PSS's failure to meet its prima facie burden. The order was affirmed as modified on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law ViolationsCommon Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationSafety ConsultingAppellate ReviewContractual Obligations
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Pine Hill Coffee Service, Inc.

Gerald Kennedy, an employee of Sahlem’s Roofing, sustained injuries after falling from a roof while working on a building owned by defendant James DeMarco and occupied by Pine Hill Coffee Services, Inc. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, arguing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate safety equipment. Defendants contended that a co-employee acting as a 'spotter' constituted a safety device and that Kennedy was a recalcitrant worker for continuing to work when the 'spotter' left. The court rejected the argument that a human 'spotter' is a safety device under Labor Law § 240 (1), emphasizing the requirement for physical safety devices. Finding that the absence of proper safety devices was the proximate cause of Kennedy’s injuries, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Lawabsolute liabilityconstruction accidentfall from heightsafety devicesrecalcitrant workerproximate causeNew York Lawsummary judgmentowner liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garhartt v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Plaintiff, a laborer, was injured after falling approximately 20 feet from a boiler in the defendant's power plant. He had temporarily removed his provided safety belt to change a light bulb and subsequently lost his balance, sustaining serious injuries. Plaintiff commenced an action under Labor Law §240(1), arguing that the safety devices were insufficient, and initially secured a partial summary judgment on liability. However, the defendant appealed, contending that adequate safety equipment was provided and the plaintiff's failure to use it was the sole proximate cause of the fall. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, ruling that a factual question exists regarding the suitability of the safety device, thus requiring a trial resolution by a jury.

Workplace SafetyFall from HeightLabor LawStatutory DutyContributory NegligenceProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafety EquipmentWorker Injury
References
6
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07571 [133 AD3d 87]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2015

Quinones v. Olmstead Props., Inc.

Pedro Quinones, an employee of North Shore Neon Sign, was injured while painting graffiti on a billboard leased by Fuel Outdoor, LLC. He fell from concrete blocks, having reportedly forgone available safety equipment like a cherry picker, ladders, and a safety harness, which he claimed were inadequate due to site conditions. The Supreme Court initially granted Quinones partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting a failure to provide proper safety devices. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding conflicting evidence regarding the adequacy of the safety devices and whether Quinones' actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby necessitating a trial. The dissenting opinion argued that Fuel's expert failed to adequately counter Quinones' claims of device inadequacy.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFall from heightSafety devicesSole proximate causeAppellate DivisionWorker injuryBillboard maintenanceConstruction accidentElevation risk
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 6,454 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