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. 2015 NY Slip Op 05759 [130 AD3d 405]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2015

Matter of Rhames v. City of New York

Petitioner Kasheem Rhames, an employee of the Department of Education, was injured when a skid carrying paper fell on his foot. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion to deny the City of New York's workers' compensation lien. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this order. The court held that Rhames was not entitled to no-fault benefits because the delivery vehicle was not a proximate cause of his injuries, thereby requiring the denial of the application to deny the workers' compensation lien.

Workers' Compensation LienNo-Fault BenefitsProximate CauseVehicle AccidentDepartment of Education EmployeeAppellate ReviewOrder ReversedDelivery InjuryPersonal Injury ClaimInsurance Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiPalma v. State

The case concerns a claimant who sustained injuries when a skid box filled with concrete debris fell from a forklift and struck him. The Court of Claims found the property owner liable under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). On appeal, the defendant challenged the court's decision, arguing against the credibility of the claimant's testimony, the applicability of Labor Law § 240(1) due to a minimal height differential, and the findings under § 241(6). The appellate court rejected all of the defendant's contentions, affirming the lower court's determination of liability for the claimant's injuries.

Labor LawNegligenceSkid box accidentForklift accidentGravity-related accidentFalsus in uno doctrineWitness credibilityHeight differentialDebris handlingWorkplace safety
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2008

Barr v. 157 5 Avenue

The plaintiff appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff was injured after falling from a wobbly, old ladder lacking anti-skid pads while performing renovation work. Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and general contractors to provide safety devices. The plaintiff established a prima facie case through his deposition, showing the ladder failed to provide proper protection and was a proximate cause of the accident. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or challenge the plaintiff's credibility.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentProximate CauseElevated RisksNondelegable DutyWorker SafetyDeposition TestimonyCredibility Issue
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarabocchia v. John W. McGrath Corp.

This case addresses cross-motions for summary judgment concerning whether an injury falls under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The plaintiff previously received state workmen's compensation but was denied federal compensation by a Deputy Commissioner, who found the injury did not occur on navigable waters. The injury happened when the plaintiff fell from a skid attached to a pier. The District Court affirmed the Deputy Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review. The court distinguished this case from a precedent where the injury involved striking water. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' motions were granted.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentNavigable WatersWorkmen's CompensationScope of ReviewAdministrative LawPier AccidentMaritime LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1997

Donitz v. Mui

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to defendant Con Edison, dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The appellate court affirmed the order, noting that a worker traveling to and from work is generally not within the scope of employment due to a lack of employer control. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant Kin S. Mui was furthering Con Edison's work or that Con Edison controlled him at the accident time. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion, explaining that evidence of skidding, along with the driver's explanation, presents factual questions for a jury rather than mandating a finding of negligence.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentScope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorCommuting RuleNegligenceAutomobile AccidentAppellate ReviewQueens CountyCon Edison
References
5
Case No. ADJ13228350
Regular
Jul 14, 2025

Paul Janikowski vs. Tesla Motors, Inc.

Applicant Paul Janikowski, a production associate at Tesla Motors, Inc., suffered severe leg and ankle injuries in 2019 due to a machine malfunction involving a conveyor and skids. He alleged serious and willful misconduct by Tesla, arguing that the company failed to provide adequate safety protocols and reduced the job from a two-person task to a one-person task, forcing him to cross an energized conveyor. Despite defendant's arguments that safety protocols were in place and the operation met industry standards, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found that the applicant met his burden of proof. The Appeals Board denied Tesla's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardWCJCal OSHAMercer-FraserJohns-ManvilleHawaiian PineappleDowden
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2004

Cappiello v. Johnson

The Town of Orangetown appealed a Supreme Court order denying its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The plaintiffs alleged that the Town created a hazardous icy condition by plowing snow onto the sides of the road, which then melted and refroze across the road, causing a vehicle to skid and hit the plaintiffs' vehicle. The Town argued that prior written notice of icy conditions was required under Town Law § 65-a. However, the court found that prior written notice is not required when a municipality is alleged to have created the hazardous condition. The Supreme Court properly denied the Town's motion for summary judgment as the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact regarding the Town's creation of the dangerous condition. The order was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityIcy ConditionsSnow PlowingHazardous ConditionPrior Written NoticeRoad MaintenanceVehicle SkidAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03584
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Smith v. Park

Alex K. Smith, a 14-year-old, died in a skid steer accident at Park Family Farm. His mother, Vicky S.T. Smith, as administrator, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, finding the decedent an illegally employed minor. The claimant challenged this, arguing the employer was uninsured. The Workers' Compensation Board confirmed coverage by the State Insurance Fund and increased the death benefit award to $100,000 under double indemnity provisions, with Park Family Farm solely responsible for the increased amount due to illegal employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that a change in partnership composition did not invalidate the insurance policy.

Illegal EmploymentMinor Employee DeathWorkers' Compensation Death BenefitsInsurance Policy ValidityPartnership ChangeEmployer LiabilityDouble IndemnityAppellate ReviewFarm AccidentSkid Steer Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waiters v. Northern Trust Co.

Plaintiff, a cleaning worker for Collins Building Services, Inc. (CBS), was injured after slipping on a wet bathroom floor in a building managed by defendant Tower Realty. He commenced an action for personal injuries against Tower, the building owner, and the 10th floor occupant, alleging negligence for a slippery floor and failure to install a non-skid surface. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not create or have notice of the dangerous condition, and that the plaintiff was hired to remedy such conditions. The Supreme Court initially denied the motions, but the Appellate Court reversed, holding that defendants met their burden of demonstrating a lack of actual or constructive notice. The court also affirmed the principle that a maintenance worker cannot claim injury from a dangerous condition they were hired to remedy, thereby granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing the complaint.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligenceSlippery FloorCleaning Worker InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyActual NoticeConstructive NoticeHearsay Evidence
References
19
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01026 [180 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2020

Lind v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y.

Plaintiff Earl Lind Jr. was injured while operating an articulating lift during construction of the World Trade Center's Vehicle Security Center, when the lift skidded on a sludge-covered ramp and crashed. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found defendants, including Tishman Construction Corporation, liable as statutory "agents" of the project owner, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, due to their broad responsibility for job site safety. Plaintiff's testimony established prima facie that the lift was a safety device whose failure proximately caused his elevation-related injury.

Construction site injuryWorkplace safetyLabor LawStatutory agentSummary judgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal injuryElevation riskWorld Trade CenterConstruction management
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 14 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