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. 2016 NY Slip Op 06673 [143 AD3d 749]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2016

Beeker v. Islip U-Slip, LLC

The plaintiff, Jeffrey Beeker, allegedly sustained personal injuries from a fall on an exterior staircase at a commercial warehouse owned by Islip U-Slip, LLC. At the time, the plaintiff was employed by nonparty Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., and Raymour & Flanigan Properties, LLC, was under contract to purchase the warehouse. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Islip U-Slip was an out-of-possession landlord and RFP was either a joint venture with or alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, thereby invoking Workers' Compensation exclusivity. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie either the joint venture/alter ego relationship or that Islip U-Slip lacked a contractual duty to maintain the staircase.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityOut-of-Possession LandlordPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewDuty to MaintainAlter EgoJoint VentureStaircase Fall
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 01555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2016

Lois v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC

Plaintiff Jorge Lois, an employee of J&R Glassworks, Inc., sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC and Bass Associates, LLC, after slipping and falling on a plastic tarp and broken concrete at a construction site. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss Lois's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and their contractual indemnification claim against J&R. The court denied both motions, finding issues of fact regarding Bass Associates' role as an owner, the defendants' responsibility for the hazardous condition, and the applicability of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2). Additionally, J&R failed to demonstrate an absence of factual issues concerning its notice of the hazardous condition, thereby upholding the contractual indemnification claim against it.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSlip and FallThird-Party ActionOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityHazardous Condition
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02194
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2018

Rojas v. 1000 42nd St., LLC

Josefina Rojas, a cleaner, sued 1000 42nd Street, LLC, the owner of a multi-tenant residential building in Brooklyn, for personal injuries after allegedly slipping and falling on cardboard in the basement while performing her duties on September 21, 2014. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order and granted the defendant's motion. The Appellate Division held that the risk of slipping on cardboard was inherent in the plaintiff's work, which involved cleaning and removing garbage from the basement. The court affirmed that a landowner's duty to a worker is to provide a safe place to work, but not to guard against hazards inherent in the worker's specific tasks or those readily observable, thereby finding the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

premises liabilityslip and fallsummary judgmentlandowner dutysafe place to workinherent hazardcleaning workerappellate divisionreversalnegligence
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08103 [189 AD3d 1661]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2020

Villa v. East 85th Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Luis Villa, an employee of Capital Craftsman, Inc., sustained injuries after falling while installing tile in a bathtub at a building owned by East 85th Realty, LLC. He initiated an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed the complaint, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the defendant was not liable under Labor Law § 200 for a dangerous condition or supervisory control, nor under Labor Law § 241 (6) due to the lack of an identifiable slipping hazard. Furthermore, Labor Law § 240 (1) was deemed inapplicable as the plaintiff's fall was not an elevation-related hazard within the statute's scope.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site AccidentSlipping HazardElevation-Related Hazard
References
14
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06114 [142 AD3d 854]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2016

Grossman v. TCR

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a slip and fall case. Plaintiff Richard Grossman alleged he slipped on water on the tile floor of defendant TCR's men's locker room. The court found that it could not be determined as a matter of law whether a hazardous condition was created by the water or if the defendant had actual or constructive notice. The majority distinguished the case from precedents where water was deemed 'necessarily incidental' due to direct proximity to pools or showers, noting evidence suggested a potentially defective condition and the possibility of constructive notice due to inadequate mopping practices and the use of towels. A dissenting opinion argued that the water was necessarily incidental to the locker room's use, citing the presence of a floor drain and the plaintiff's own awareness of frequent wetness in the area, thus advocating for summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilityNegligenceSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeHazardous ConditionLocker RoomFitness ClubAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04140
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2020

Athenas v. Simon Prop. Group, LP

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granting summary judgment to the landlord and tenant defendants in a personal injury action. Plaintiff Donna Athenas allegedly slipped on Pine Sol in the common area of a shopping mall. The court found that the tenant defendants were not liable, as the accident occurred outside their area of control and the janitor who caused the spill was an independent contractor. The landlord defendants also successfully demonstrated that they did not create the hazardous condition or have actual or constructive notice of it.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorRespondeat SuperiorLandlord LiabilityTenant LiabilityCommon AreasNoticeAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03703
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2020

Matter of Djukic v. Hanna Andersson, LLC

Claimant Anela Djukic, a sales lead for Hanna Andersson, LLC, slipped and fell inside a shopping mall entrance on her way to work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established her claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for off-premises accidents to be compensable, there must be a special hazard at the location and a close association of the access route with the employment premises. The court found no evidence that the chosen entrance served a business purpose, was controlled by the employer, or presented a risk specifically related to claimant's employment, concluding the wet ground condition was a general danger to any passerby.

off-premises injurygoing and coming rulespecial hazard exceptionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Divisionslip and fallmall entrancecourse of employmentarise out of employmentemployer control
References
9
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04613
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2015

Kiskiel v. Stone Edge Management, Inc.

The injured plaintiff, Edward Kiskiel, a New York City sanitation worker, allegedly slipped and fell on a puddle of wet paint in a parking lot. The defendant, Stone Edge Management, Inc., managed an adjoining condominium complex that had an easement over the parking lot. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, holding that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating it neither created the hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its existence. The court found the condition was transient and not visible prior to the accident, and there was no evidence, only speculation, that the defendant created it. Thus, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeHazardous ConditionParking Lot AccidentProperty ManagementAppellate ReviewNegligencePersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04946
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2022

Breland-Marrow v. RXR Realty, LLC

Debra Breland-Marrow and her husband sued RXR Realty, LLC and BEWCO Corporation for personal injuries after Breland-Marrow slipped on ice in their building. RXR and BEWCO initiated a third-party action against their service contractor, ABM Janitorial Service Northeast, Inc., for indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint, finding no evidence that RXR and BEWCO created or had notice of the hazardous condition, and denied the third-party claims as academic. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint but reversed the Supreme Court's decision on the third-party claims, denying summary judgment to RXR and BEWCO on those claims on the merits, citing insufficient proof of ABM's negligence or failure to procure insurance.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceAppellate ReviewActual NoticeConstructive Notice
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,421 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