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

Boyd v. Schiavone Construction Co.

Plaintiff Robert Boyd, a drill operating engineer, was severely injured on a subway construction site when a drill rig he was operating tipped over, pinning him to the tracks. The incident occurred after safety chains securing the rig were removed, a procedure whose necessity and execution were disputed. Boyd filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the contractors, Schiavone Construction Co. and Granite Halmar Construction Company. The Supreme Court initially denied Boyd's motion for summary judgment on liability, citing a potential 'sole proximate cause' defense. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, emphasizing that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) and found insufficient evidence to establish Boyd as the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby granting his motion for summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate DivisionDrill Rig AccidentConstruction SafetyGravity-Related AccidentWorker InjuryFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2005

Beharry v. Public Storage, Inc.

The plaintiff, Deonarine Beharry, an iron worker, sustained injuries after falling through metal decking while ascending unfinished stairs at a construction site. He sued the property owners, Public Storage, Inc. and PSAC Development Partners, LP, and the general contractor, Racanelli Construction Company, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability. The defendants appealed, arguing the metal decking was not a safety device and the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the metal decking served as a functional equivalent of a ladder under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawScaffold LawLiabilityMetal DeckingSafety DeviceProximate CauseAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soles v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Dana Soles, an employee of Christa Construction, Inc., sustained a back injury on July 20, 1990, while manually carrying a 600-pound door frame up a building staircase at Kodak Park. He sued site owner Eastman Kodak Company under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, alleging permanent disability due to the lack of safety devices. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Soles' claims. The court found that Soles' injury did not involve a fall or being struck by a falling object, thus precluding liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Furthermore, the claims under Labor Law § 241(6) were dismissed because the cited Industrial Code sections were either too general or irrelevant to the accident's cause, and Labor Law § 200(1) claims failed due to a lack of evidence regarding Eastman Kodak Company's notice or supervisory control over the work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200 (1)Summary JudgmentGravity-related hazardMaterial hoistSupervisory authorityConstruction accidentWorkplace injuryThird-party action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piotrowski v. McGuire Manor, Inc.

Whalen, J., in this dissenting opinion, argues against the majority's decision to reverse a judgment and order a new trial. The dissent contends that the defendant failed to preserve its objection to the jury charge concerning sole proximate cause, specifically regarding the recalcitrant worker defense or an expanded sole proximate cause instruction. Whalen emphasizes that discussions about the verdict sheet do not preserve objections to jury instructions, citing CPLR 4110-b and established case law. Furthermore, the dissenting judge asserts that the jury charge provided (PJI 2:217) was adequate for the sole proximate cause defense and allowed the jury to consider whether the plaintiff's actions were the only substantial factor in causing the injury. The jury's subsequent apportionment of 60% responsibility to the plaintiff also indicated that they did not find the plaintiff to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, Whalen would affirm the original judgment, concluding that the issue of the jury charge was not preserved for review.

Jury ChargeSole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerCPLR 4110-bAppellate ReviewPreservation of ErrorVerdict SheetEvidentiary RulingLabor LawDissenting Opinion
References
11
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01847 [236 AD3d 1267]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Ferra v. Paramount Global

Claimant Jorge Ferra, a sound engineer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling for his employer. After an initial 'bumper to bumper' incident, he pulled over to the shoulder, and his vehicle was subsequently struck from behind by a third vehicle, causing serious injuries. A toxicology screening revealed a blood alcohol level of .18. The employer and carrier argued that intoxication was either the sole cause of the accident or constituted a significant deviation from employment, thus precluding compensability. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and that intoxication was not the sole cause of the injury. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, reiterating that the carrier bears a 'heavy burden' to prove intoxication was the *sole* cause of the injury, and that intoxicated driving itself does not, per se, constitute a deviation from employment that negates workers' compensation coverage.

Intoxication DefenseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentCourse of EmploymentSole Cause DoctrineDeviation from EmploymentCausally Related InjuryBlood Alcohol ContentAppellate ReviewThird Department Precedent
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Villapol v. American Landmark Management

Claimant, an elevator operator, sustained serious injuries after falling into an empty elevator shaft due to a defective elevator parking device, despite being severely intoxicated. The Workers' Compensation Board granted benefits, finding the injury was not solely caused by intoxication but partly by the defective device. The employer appealed, arguing intoxication was the sole cause. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the statutory presumption against intoxication as the sole cause and ample evidence of the defective elevator as a contributing factor. The court also found harmless error in denying claimant's testimony and no abuse of discretion in denying full Board review.

Elevator AccidentIntoxication DefenseDefective EquipmentStatutory PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausationHarmless ErrorFull Board Review Denial
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Citicorp

In a personal injury action, a building maintenance worker sued the building's owner and sole tenant after slipping on snow and ice on the roof. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the tenant and denied it to the owner, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for further disclosure. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified. The action was dismissed against the tenant, finding the plaintiff was its special employee. The owner's motion for summary judgment was also granted, as the out-of-possession landlord was not responsible for general maintenance or snow removal, which was the tenant's sole responsibility, and the cause of the fall was not a structural defect.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeOut-of-Possession LandlordSnow and IceBuilding MaintenanceAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityTenant Responsibility
References
2
Case No. 2011 NY Slip Op 31707(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Peters v. New School

Plaintiff was injured after falling through a hole in the floor when a wood beam cracked, causing him to fall while removing plywood sheets. The court found that the defendant failed to provide any safety devices, thus entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1). The defendant's opposition, claiming the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, was deemed conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. As a result, the lower court's denial of summary judgment was unanimously reversed, and the plaintiff's motion was granted.

Labor LawFall from HeightSummary JudgmentSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate CauseAppellate ReversalConstruction AccidentPremises Liability
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06588 [210 AD3d 1496]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2022

Green v. Evergreen Family Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Bradford Green initiated an action to recover damages for injuries sustained from a fall off an A-frame ladder while working on a car wash overhead door. The defendants, Evergreen Family Limited Partnership, moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff's activity was not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) or that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability and dismissal of the sole proximate cause defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but granted plaintiff's motion on the 14th affirmative defense. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding triable issues of fact concerning whether the work constituted routine maintenance or a repair, and the adequacy of the safety device provided, thus precluding a sole proximate cause defense as a matter of law.

Ladder FallWorkplace InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety EquipmentAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyMaintenance vs. RepairPersonal Injury
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Peter v. Nisseli Realty Co.

The defendant, ANI Entertainment, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Cyril Peter, sustained injuries when a ladder he was standing on during renovation work slid from beneath him, causing a fall. The plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case for liability. ANI Entertainment, Inc. failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact concerning the injured plaintiff's conduct as a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentRenovation WorkConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionLiabilityRecalcitrant WorkerProximate Cause
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,280 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