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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06419 [154 AD3d 139]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2017

Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed consolidated wrongful death actions stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which caused the deaths of Donald Christopher Leo and Ramadan Kurtaj. Plaintiffs, including Maria Leo and Xhevahire Sinanaj, sued James F. Lomma and his companies (J.F. Lomma, Inc. and New York Crane & Equipment Corp.) alleging negligence and reckless conduct related to a defective crane bearing. The court affirmed the jury's decision to pierce the corporate veil and to preclude a defense expert, finding Lomma personally liable due to his actions. However, the appellate court significantly reduced the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, conscious pain and suffering, and punitive damages, deeming them excessive. The judgment was modified, contingent on the plaintiffs stipulating to the reduced amounts.

Crane CollapseWrongful DeathCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExpert Testimony PreclusionNegligenceConstruction AccidentConscious Pain and SufferingPreimpact TerrorDefective Weld
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action brought an action against the Board of Elections in the City of New York (BOE) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging pervasive access barriers at poll sites. The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of pervasive and recurring accessibility barriers and deemed the BOE's accommodation methods insufficient. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion. The case is now referred to a Magistrate Judge for the determination of the appropriate remedy.

AccessibilityVoting RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPoll SitesSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationBoard of ElectionsMeaningful AccessReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2011

East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litigation v. Lincoln General Insurance

This Supreme Court order addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which led to multiple claims against the property owner, East 51st Street Development Company, LLC. The primary conflict involved insurance companies Lincoln General, AXIS Surplus, and Interstate Fire and Casualty regarding their duty to defend East 51st Street and reimburse Illinois Union Insurance Company for defense costs. Initially, the Supreme Court granted various motions for summary judgment, establishing duties to defend and determining policy priority. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying Lincoln General's assertions of excess coverage and declaring Lincoln General primarily obligated to provide coverage to East 51st Street. Other aspects, such as AXIS and Interstate's duty to share defense costs, and East 51st Street's status as an additional insured, were affirmed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendDefense Costs ReimbursementPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSummary Judgment MotionAdditional InsuredCrane Collapse LitigationPolicy InterpretationInsurance Policy Limits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1997

Gontarzewski v. City of New York

A plaintiff commenced work for Fresh Meadows Painting and Construction Corp. at a job site in Manhattan, sustaining spinal injury and a fractured rib due to a fall when a beam collapsed. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241, and 241-a. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing that the credibility of the plaintiff's affidavit was a matter for a jury. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, as the defendant, City of New York, failed to provide any contradictory evidence, and the lack of safety devices was deemed the proximate cause of the injuries.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction Site InjuryProximate CauseSafety DevicesAppellate ReviewCredibility IssueEvidentiary BurdenFall from HeightNew York Supreme Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2002

Machado v. City of New York

The defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding damages for personal injuries. The case involved a construction worker who sustained severe injuries, including a spinal fracture and knee destruction, after a trench wall collapse in 1996, for which he obtained summary judgment against the City under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's inadequate verdict on damages, ordering a new trial unless the City agreed to increased awards for past and future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, agreeing that the jury's award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. This decision upholds the conditional directive for a new trial on damages.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseLabor LawDamagesPain and SufferingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialSpinal Fracture
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2003

Gabriel v. Boldt Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Raun Duval Gabriel, a construction worker, was injured when a defective hoisting apparatus collapsed while he and a coworker were attempting to lift a heavy metal insert. The cross member holding the pulley collapsed, striking the plaintiff with the pulley and rope. The Appellate Division concluded that a defective hoist, collapsing during use, constitutes a falling object under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus entitling plaintiffs to partial summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction InjuryHoisting Equipment FailureFalling Object DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalWorkplace AccidentAbsolute LiabilityScaffolding LawDefective Device
References
1
Case No. ADJ8222509
Regular
May 12, 2015

SARAI CRUZ CANSECO vs. NEW DESSERTS, INC., WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether an employee's psychiatric injury claim is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which typically requires six months of employment, unless the injury resulted from a "sudden and extraordinary employment condition." The applicant, employed for less than six months, injured her wrist and ankle when a bakery cart collapsed. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the cart's collapse constituted a sudden and extraordinary event that did not bar the psychiatric claim. The dissenting commissioner argued the collapse was an unforeseen accident but not extraordinary enough to bypass the six-month rule, differentiating it from truly sudden and extraordinary events.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment rulebakery cart collapseindustrial injurycompensable consequenceroutine employment eventoccupational hazardno-fault system
References
3
Case No. ADJ2320623
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

SAMIR SOLOMON vs. TRI VALLEY BUICK, PONTIAC, GMC, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, In Liquidation

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for an automobile salesman injured on April 14, 2001, resulting in spinal and psychiatric injuries. The WCJ awarded temporary disability through June 22, 2004, 52¼% permanent disability, and further medical treatment for the psyche, but not the spine, denying defendant credit for civil damages. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration, arguing various evidentiary errors, particularly regarding the duration of temporary disability and the need for spinal treatment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of both petitions, affirming the WCJ's decision, though one Commissioner dissented, believing the applicant's temporary disability claim and spinal treatment need further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjurySpine InjuryPsychiatric InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMedical TreatmentCivil DamagesReconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hudson 500 LLC v. Tower Insurance Co. of New York

This case involves a claim by plaintiff Hudson 500 LLC against Tower Insurance Company of New York for insurance coverage due to a partial collapse of its building on August 23, 2005. Defendant Tower moved for summary judgment, arguing the loss predated the policy period and did not constitute a 'collapse' as defined. Plaintiff Hudson moved for partial summary judgment on liability, asserting the damage was caused by hidden decay and was covered. The court found conflicting expert opinions regarding the cause and timing of the damage, and the interpretation of 'collapse' under New York law, specifically whether 'substantial impairment of structural integrity' without total destruction qualifies. Due to these unresolved factual disputes, both motions for summary judgment were denied.

Insurance CoverageProperty DamageBuilding CollapseSummary JudgmentHidden DecayStructural IntegrityNew York LawPolicy InterpretationExpert TestimonyConflicting Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1996

Lightfoot v. State

The claimants appealed an order denying their motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The injured claimant, employed by a company contracted by the State of New York to paint bridges, suffered injuries after falling from a truck platform when its safety guardrail collapsed. The court found that the collapse of the safety device constituted a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and was a proximate cause of the injuries, entitling claimants to judgment on liability. The State's argument that the claimant was adjusting the guardrail prior to collapse did not create a triable issue of fact, as the device itself was inadequate. Furthermore, the recalcitrant worker defense was not applicable due to lack of evidence that the claimant refused to use provided safety devices. The order was reversed, the claimants' motion was granted, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

personal injuryconstruction accidentscaffold lawsafety deviceproximate causesummary judgmentappellate reviewrecalcitrant worker defenselabor law violationguardrail collapse
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 452 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