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 01758 [203 AD3d 531]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2022

Valentine v. 2147 Second Ave. LLC

Michael Valentine, a project safety coordinator for Homeland Safety Consultants, sued 2147 Second Avenue LLC and other defendants for injuries sustained at a demolition and construction site. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted summary judgment to defendants Gary Silver Architects, P.C. and Sunshine Quality Construction, Inc., dismissing the complaint against them, and denied Valentine's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding no evidence of affirmative negligence by GSA and concluding that Sunshine was not on site as a general contractor until after the accident. The court also upheld the denial of Valentine's Labor Law claim, noting it was never properly pleaded in his complaints.

Demolition ProjectConstruction AccidentProject Safety CoordinatorSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Affirmative NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityPleading AmendmentsAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05756 [209 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2022

Lopez v. 157-161 E. 28th St., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning the dismissal of second third-party claims for breach of contract, unpaid overtime wages, and breach of constructive trust related to a construction project. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that New Wave Contracting Corp., a subcontractor, was the direct employer of the individual second third-party plaintiffs, not the general contractors Iceberg Developing Co., LLC and Forkosh Construction Co., Inc. The court also found that signed lien waivers and releases by the individual second third-party plaintiffs validly barred their wage and contract claims, as payment was accepted without objection. Furthermore, constructive trust claims were correctly dismissed due to the lack of contractual privity between the individual second third-party plaintiffs and the general contractors.

Construction ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityWage ClaimsLien LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipContractual PrivityRelease WaiverAppellate ReviewThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Greenburgh Central School District Number 7

Lawson, a school bus driver for Shore Transportation Co., was dismissed after the Central School District alleged erratic driving and demanded his removal. Shore had a contract with the district giving the latter approval rights over drivers. Lawson initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, converted to a declaratory judgment action, to annul his dismissal and compel the appellants (Central School District and Shore) to grant an evidentiary hearing. The appellants' motion to dismiss was denied. The court affirmed the denial, ruling that the school district's substantial contractual and statutory control over driver employment, even without direct employment, could entitle Lawson to procedural due process protections, thus stating a valid cause of action for a hearing.

Procedural Due ProcessEmployment TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78School Bus DriverContractual ControlEvidentiary HearingAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstitutional Rights
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01751
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Crutch v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC

The case involves plaintiff Robert Crutch, an HVAC mechanic, who sustained personal injuries after falling from a loading dock due to a faulty railing at a construction site. Crutch commenced an action against 421 Kent Development, LLC and Wonder Works Construction Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Initially, the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Crutch's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Crutch's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of Everest Scaffolding, Inc.'s cross-motion concerning common-law and contractual indemnification claims, finding Everest failed to prove freedom from negligence.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site AccidentLoading Dock FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuriesWorker Safety
References
29
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01613 [183 AD3d 56]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2020

Matter of Cardillo

The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts moved to confirm a Special Referee's report against Harry A. Cardillo, a suspended attorney. Cardillo was charged with two counts of misappropriating client funds from his escrow account in two separate personal injury matters in violation of rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, he allowed the balance in his escrow account to fall below the amounts due to his clients and to satisfy a workers' compensation lien. The Special Referee sustained both charges, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the report, noting Cardillo's failure to honor his fiduciary obligations and his prior disciplinary record. Consequently, Cardillo was suspended from the practice of law for three years, effective immediately, without credit for time already served under an interim suspension.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductMisappropriation of FundsEscrow Account ViolationsSuspension of AttorneyGrievance CommitteeRules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a)Fiduciary DutyAppellate Division Second Department
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02063
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2022

Hasenzahl v. 44th St. Dev. LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, considered an appeal concerning a Supreme Court order that granted a motion to sever and stay a second third-party action, and denied a motion for summary judgment. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in severing and staying the second third-party action, citing that joint tortfeasors are not necessary parties. It further noted that Gateway and Woodworks' subcontracts provided for joint and several liability, allowing for apportionment in a separate proceeding. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting Gateway's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims against it. This dismissal was based on the Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff, Gateway's employer, did not sustain a grave injury.

Appellate PracticeThird-Party ActionsSeverance and StaySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryJoint and Several LiabilitySubcontractor Agreements
References
5
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07295
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2025

Morales v. 88th Ave. Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Elihu Romero Morales, was injured at a construction site in Queens when struck in the eye by a spark from ironwork. He sued 88th Avenue Owner, LLC, and NY Developers & Managers, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The defendants then initiated a second third-party action against subcontractors Feinstein Iron Works, Inc., and Construction Realty Safety Group, Inc., for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the second third-party complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this order, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, awarding summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims, and directing the dismissal of the second third-party complaint without prejudice due to a four-year delay in its commencement. The Court found Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable as sparks are not objects requiring securing for elevation-related hazards, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) inapplicable as the plaintiff was not directly engaged in the eye-endangering operation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardThird-Party ActionDismissal Without PrejudiceSparksEye InjurySubcontractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
22
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05619 [174 AD3d 1112]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2019

Matter of Board of Educ. of The Hudson City Sch. Dist. (Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Columbia County, Local 811, Hudson City Sch. Dist. Aides Unit)

This case involves an appeal by the Board of Education of the Hudson City School District (petitioner) from an order and judgment denying its application to permanently stay arbitration. The dispute arose after modifications to prescription drug benefits in a collective bargaining agreement between the District and the Civil Service Employees Association (Union), leading to a grievance filed by Union representatives concerning retiree benefits. The District denied the grievance, arguing untimeliness and lack of Union representation for retirees. The Supreme Court found the matter arbitrable, dismissing the petition. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the broad arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement created a reasonable relationship between the dispute and the CBA, making the issue arbitrable.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration DisputeGrievance ProcedurePrescription Drug BenefitsRetiree BenefitsArbitrabilityContract InterpretationLabor LawPublic Sector EmploymentSchool District
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00545 [179 AD3d 599]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2020

Sotarriba v. 346 W. 17th St. LLC

Plaintiff, an electrical worker, sustained serious injuries after falling through an unprotected stairwell opening at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed other claims. The Appellate Division modified the order, reinstating parts of the Labor Law § 241 (6), § 200, and common-law negligence claims against defendant McGowan Builders Inc. The court also granted summary judgment to Technetek Ltd., dismissing claims against it, reasoning that Technetek's role in installing barricades was for warning, not fall prevention, and did not create or exacerbate a dangerous condition. Furthermore, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of contribution and common-law indemnification claims against Sigma Electric, Inc., concluding that plaintiff did not sustain a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightStairwell OpeningLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationGeneral Contractor LiabilitySupervisory ControlContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationGrave Injury
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05500 [152 AD3d 859]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2017

Claim of Murphy v. Newburgh Enlarged City School District

Claimant Marie Murphy sustained work-related injuries. Her employer, Newburgh Enlarged City School District, sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (d), citing Murphy's preexisting asthma and knee injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's determination that the employer was entitled to reimbursement, finding insufficient evidence that Murphy's asthma hindered her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision regarding asthma, noting that controlled conditions do not constitute a hindrance. However, the Court reversed the Board's decision because it failed to address the issue of reimbursement based on Murphy's osteoarthritis in her right knee, remitting the matter for further consideration of that specific issue.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementSpecial Disability FundPreexisting ConditionPermanent ImpairmentGeneral EmployabilityAsthmaOsteoarthritisMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalAppellate Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 13,293 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