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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
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. 2025 NYSlipOp 06668
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2025

Rivera v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

Plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy gang box into a truck. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this decision, denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and reinstating it. Furthermore, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against specific defendants (Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC, Delancey Street Associates, LLC, and T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC), while otherwise affirming the lower court's order. The court also noted a contradiction in pleadings regarding ownership by one of the defendants, Delancey Street Associates, LLC.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityAppellate DivisionGang Box InjuryConstruction AccidentPleading ContradictionOwner LiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03353 [239 AD3d 688]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2025

Vindell v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Deylis Vindell, an employee, was injured at a construction site while removing wood in a muddy, water-filled excavation, causing him to fall. He sued the owners, construction manager, and a subcontractor, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and a portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the decision. It reinstated the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing conflicting evidence regarding the water's source and whether the plaintiff was hired to remedy that specific defect. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), finding it inapplicable as the plaintiff did not slip or trip and was not using a surface covered by the code.

Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentConstruction Site AccidentMuddy ConditionsExcavation WorkIndustrial Code Violation12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)Appellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05730
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Accadia Site Contr., Inc. v. Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp.

Petitioner, Accadia Site Contracting, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against respondent Erie County Medical Center Corporation. The dispute arose after respondent disqualified petitioner's bid for a parking lot expansion project, citing failure to meet utilization requirements for minority, women, and service-disabled veteran-owned business enterprises under Executive Law § 313. Petitioner's subsequent request for an administrative hearing was dismissed by respondent. Petitioner sought to annul this determination and compel a hearing in the Appellate Division. The Court dismissed the petition due to lack of original subject matter jurisdiction, clarifying that Executive Law § 313 (5) (c) only grants jurisdiction to review a final administrative determination made *after* a hearing, not to compel a hearing.

Bid disqualificationAdministrative hearingSubject matter jurisdictionAppellate DivisionExecutive LawCPLR Article 78Public benefit corporationUtilization planNonresponsive bidMinority business enterprises
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1997

Ortega v. Catamount Construction Corp.

A laborer sued a site owner, construction manager, and an asbestos removal prime contractor for personal injuries sustained at a renovation site. The Supreme Court found the defendants liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), apportioning fault among them and a defaulting asbestos removal subcontractor, who was the plaintiff's employer. The site owner was awarded common-law indemnity against the construction manager and asbestos contractors, and contractual indemnity against the prime contractor. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by vacating the apportionment of fault due to being against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial for this issue, while affirming the remainder of the judgment. The court also affirmed the common-law indemnity for the owner against the construction manager and addressed the construction manager's unpreserved liability argument.

Personal InjuryRenovation SiteLabor Law 240(1)Apportionment of FaultIndemnityConstruction SafetyScaffoldRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSupreme CourtAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2006

Ritzer v. 6 East 43rd Street Corp.

In this Supreme Court Order from New York County, an action by a construction worker against a construction site owner and general contractor for personal injuries was reviewed. The plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the site owner was denied due to an insufficient affidavit. Concurrently, the defendants' cross motion to compel the plaintiff's acceptance of their amended answer was granted. The court noted that most of the delay in answering was attributed to the site owner's insurer and found no resulting prejudice to the plaintiff. The decision to deny the default judgment and grant the cross motion was unanimously affirmed by a panel of judges.

construction accidentpersonal injuryscaffold falldefault judgment motionamended answerindemnification clauseinsurer responsibilityappellate reviewcivil procedurecourt discretion
References
6
Case No. 2014-06-0071
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2015

Asberry , Wendal v. Site Communications

Wendal Asberry, an employee, filed for an Expedited Hearing seeking medical and past temporary disability benefits after allegedly sustaining a knee injury on November 3, 2014, while working for Site Communications. The employer denied the claim, citing improper reporting and a potential pre-existing condition. The Workers’ Compensation Judge found Mr. Asberry's testimony credible regarding the work-related injury. The court ordered Site Communications and its insurer, The Hartford, to provide medical treatment for the knee injury and to pay Mr. Asberry temporary partial disability benefits from November 5 to December 22, 2014.

Knee InjuryExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsEmployment TerminationCredibility of TestimonyEmployer LiabilityCausationPre-existing ConditionScope of Employment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2002

Fabriziov v. City of New York

Plaintiff, a licensed electrician and part owner of a third-party defendant company, sustained personal injuries after falling into an open manhole at a sewage treatment plant construction site on Wards Island. Plaintiff claimed protection under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 240 (1) but denied it for Labor Law § 241 (6), also denying plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the court modified the order, dismissing the cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) and affirming the rest. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff was not a protected worker under the Labor Law sections at the time of the accident, as he was merely inspecting the site to estimate costs for future work rather than performing repair or other listed activities.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentWorker ClassificationAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityScope of WorkInjury Claims
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ross v. Nestle Prepared Foods Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of Nestle Prepared Foods Company, Inc., sought damages for injuries sustained while cleaning a machine at work. The Supreme Court dismissed the amended complaint against Nestle, citing the exclusivity provisions of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the 'dual capacity doctrine' should apply since Nestle designed the machine for its employees' exclusive use. The appellate court rejected this contention, referencing prior case law, and unanimously affirmed the lower court's order of dismissal without costs.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityDual Capacity DoctrinePersonal Injury ClaimIndustrial AccidentAppellate Court AffirmanceEmployer LiabilityMachine SafetyNew York Workers' CompensationMotion to Dismiss GrantedEmployee Rights
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,459 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