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
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. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2006

Toussaint v. Angello

The petitioners sought a determination that the respondent, Commissioner of Labor, violated Labor Law § 27-a (4) (b) by not adopting a safety standard recommended by the New York State Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Abatement Board. The Supreme Court denied this petition, and that decision was subsequently affirmed. The appellate court clarified that the statute does not compel the Commissioner to automatically promulgate all Board recommendations. Instead, it mandates consultation and a showing of necessity for any new standard. The Commissioner's decision to return the proposal for further review was therefore deemed a lawful exercise of authority, not arbitrary or capricious.

Labor LawSafety StandardsOccupational SafetyHazard Abatement BoardCommissioner of LaborStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawMinisterial Duty
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06730
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Morocho v. Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold lacking safety railings while renovating an apartment building owned by Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff met his prima facie burden by demonstrating a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the absence of safety devices, and a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation because the movable scaffold lacked safety railings as required by 12 NYCRR 23-5.18 (b). The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLabor LawAppellate ReviewPrima Facie BurdenSafety RailingsProximate CauseWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leszczynski v. Town of Neversink

Plaintiff Grzegorz Leszczynski sustained head and back injuries from a falling frozen stone while working in a trench, leading him and his wife to sue IMS Safety, Inc., a safety consultant, under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The jury found IMS Safety, Inc. liable under Labor Law § 241 (6) for failing to ensure workplace safety by allowing elevated loads over workers, a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (h) (5). Damages were awarded to plaintiffs for medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence that IMS Safety, Inc. acted as an agent of the general contractor and violated specific Industrial Code provisions, and that the damages award was reasonable.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law ViolationFalling Object AccidentWorkplace SafetySafety Consultant NegligenceIndustrial Code CompliancePersonal Injury DamagesAppellate AffirmationAgent LiabilityHerniated Disc
References
10
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

Cody v. State

The claimant, a construction worker, was injured after falling through an unsecured plywood platform covering a stairwell. He filed an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) by the defendant. The Court of Claims initially found for the defendant, stating the claimant was constructing the platform and failed to prove proximate causation by lack of a safety device. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the unsecured platform itself was an inadequate safety device against elevation-related hazards, constituting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that this violation was a proximate cause of the injury, regardless of the claimant's own conduct, and remitted the matter for a determination of damages.

Construction AccidentLabor LawElevation-Related HazardUnsecured PlatformProximate CauseWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewLiabilitySafety DeviceNegligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schieve v. International Business Machines Corp.

Plaintiff Michael P. Schieve, a steel worker, was injured after falling from a steel beam at a construction site owned by IBM, with Whiting as the general contractor and Gives as a subcontractor. Schieve, employed by Binghamton, alleged negligence and Labor Law violations due to the absence of safety devices. The Supreme Court partially granted Gives' motion for contractual indemnification against Binghamton but denied common-law indemnification. It also granted Schieve partial summary judgment against IBM, Whiting, and Gives for violating Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court affirmed these orders, ruling that Schieve was a protected class under Labor Law § 240 (1), the lack of any safety device constituted a violation, and liability was properly imposed on the owner and general contractor. The court also upheld the contractual indemnification.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightSafety ViolationsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
13
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. 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 6,096 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