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
Dec 13, 1978

Waters v. Patent Scaffold Co.

This personal injury action arises from Charles Waters' fall from a scaffolding I-beam in 1970, allegedly unbolted by a co-worker. Waters was employed by I. Rosen & Sons, Inc., a masonry subcontractor. The defendants included the general contractor-owner and Patent Scaffold Co., which leased and initially installed the scaffolding. The court determined that Patent Scaffold Co. was an independent supplier, not a contractor, and thus not liable under Labor Law § 240, nor for common-law negligence or strict liability, as the alleged duties devolved upon the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order partially granting summary judgment to Patent Scaffold Co. was modified to grant summary judgment on all causes of action, and as modified, affirmed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentContractor LiabilityLessor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityConstruction Site SafetyDuty to SuperviseStrict Liability
References
1
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00748 [136 AD3d 423]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2016

DaSilva v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Carlos DaSilva was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (SPS) and Archstone entities, after falling from scaffolding that moved. The court found his accident was proximately caused by a Labor Law violation and rejected the recalcitrant worker defense due to lack of evidence he knew he was expected to use a ladder. Defendant Everest Scaffolding, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing a contractual indemnification cross-claim was granted. However, SPS and Archstone's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims was denied, as triable issues of fact existed regarding SPS's supervisory control and constructive notice. The Appellate Division affirmed these lower court orders.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSupervisory ControlConstructive NoticeThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cassidy v. Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc.

A laborer, referred to as the plaintiff, sustained neck and back injuries after falling from a temporary loading dock when its safety railing detached. The incident occurred at a construction site owned by Midtown West A.L.L.C. and general contracted by Rockrose GC MWA L.L.C., with the loading dock installed by Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. The motion court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) claims, holding the owner and general contractor liable for the failure of the elevated platform designed to protect from gravity-related hazards. However, the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law § 241 (6), Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence were dismissed due to the loading dock being classified as a platform, not a scaffold, and a lack of evidence regarding notice of an improperly reattached rail. The appellate court affirmed these rulings, also declining to consider a new argument raised by the defendants on appeal.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentElevated PlatformSafety RailGravity-Related HazardIndustrial Code § 23-1.22(c)(2)NegligenceSite Safety Expert
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2004

Morales v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc.

A construction worker, injured during his lunch break when a negligently constructed sidewalk bridge collapsed, brought suit under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The central legal question addressed was whether Labor Law § 240 (1), known as the "scaffold law," applies to injuries sustained during a lunch break. The Court found that the statute does apply, as the sidewalk bridge was an integral part of the work site and the accident was due to its improper construction, not solely the worker's conduct. The decision held the building owners liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the Court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims against Spring Scaffolding, Inc., the erector of the bridge, concluding it was not an owner, contractor, or statutory agent at the time of the accident, but affirmed that Spring could face liability under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 due to faulty construction.

Labor Law 240(1)Scaffold LawConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryLunch BreakSidewalk BridgeParapet Wall CollapseNegligent ConstructionOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
21
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
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02831 [238 AD3d 1302]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2025

Matter of Coyle v. W & W Steel Erectors LLC

This case involves an appeal by W & W Steel Erectors LLC and its workers' compensation carrier from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board denied the carrier's request to reopen the claim concerning posthumous wage-loss benefits for the minor son of the decedent, Michael Coyle. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits to the son, relying on Matter of Green, and the carrier failed to seek administrative review. After the Court of Appeals reversed Green, the carrier sought to reopen the claim, but the Board denied this request due to the lack of a timely administrative appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the reopening of the claim in the interest of justice.

Workers' CompensationWage-loss benefitsPermanent partial disabilityPosthumous benefitsReopening claimAdministrative reviewAbuse of discretionFinality of decisionAppellate DivisionCourt of Appeals reversal
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06161
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2022

Cotroneo v. Van Wagner Sign Erectors, LLC

Plaintiff Cosmo Cotroneo appealed an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the falling gang box lid was a routine workplace risk and not a material requiring hoisting or securing under the statute. However, the court modified the order to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding that missing struts on the gang box constituted a liability as they were safety devices. The defendants' arguments regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence for damaging the struts were found to be speculative. Additionally, the court confirmed that the Van Wagner/Outfront defendants were proper Labor Law defendants, acting as general contractors and agents of the owner.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionGravity-Related RiskGang BoxSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceOwner's AgentGeneral Contractor
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abreo v. URS Greiner Woodward Clyde

A plaintiff sustained personal injuries while working on a scaffold during a renovation project, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendants Colgate Scaffolding and URS Greiner Woodward Clyde (now URS Corporation-New York), the alleged general contractor and scaffolding provider, respectively, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court denied their motions in part. On appeal, the denial of summary judgment for URS concerning Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims was affirmed, as triable issues of fact existed and the cited Industrial Code provisions were deemed specific. Colgate's appeal from one order was dismissed as they were not aggrieved, and their motion for summary judgment was also found to lack a prima facie case. The plaintiff was awarded costs.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionConstruction AccidentElevation-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationsNegligenceWorkers' Safety
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08009
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2018

Giannas v. 100 3rd Ave. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ioannis Giannas, allegedly sustained personal injuries while working on a renovation project, claiming he fell from a scaffold that shifted. He sued alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against 100 3rd Avenue Corp. and JF Contracting Corp., and granted JF's motion to dismiss the complaint against it. The Supreme Court also denied Rockledge Scaffolding Corp.'s motion to dismiss the common-law negligence claim against it and its contractual indemnification cross-claim against JF. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding a triable issue of fact regarding the accident's cause for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and concluding that JF lacked the requisite supervisory control for Labor Law liability. The court further affirmed the denial of Rockledge's motions due to a triable issue of fact concerning negligent scaffold installation, which precluded summary judgment on both the common-law negligence claim and the contractual indemnification cross-claim.

scaffolding accidentpersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)common-law negligencecontractual indemnificationconstruction manager liabilitysummary judgmenttriable issue of factagencysupervisory control
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Minucci

Defendant, a scaffolding erector, constructed a scaffold whose weight exceeded the load-bearing capacity of the preexisting beams, leading to its collapse, killing five workers and seriously injuring four others. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the second degree, admitting he designed the scaffold himself without hiring a licensed professional engineer and without knowing or calculating its load capacities, despite being aware of potential dangers. His subsequent motion to vacate the judgment, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, was denied. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the denial, finding the guilty plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and counsel's performance competent. The court concluded that counsel was thoroughly familiar with the law of reckless manslaughter and that his professional judgment regarding the evidence was reasonable.

Manslaughter Second DegreeScaffold CollapseReckless ConstructionGuilty PleaIneffective Assistance of CounselCPL 440.10 MotionAppellate AffirmationCriminal Procedure LawNew York LawConstruction Safety
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 452 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