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

Gatto v. Clifton Park Senior Living, LLC

A plaintiff, working on stilts for a nine-foot ceiling during construction, suffered an accident when a stilt collapsed. The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment against the owner and general contractor, alleging liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted this motion, which led to an appeal by the defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the height involved constituted an elevation-related hazard under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found a prima facie violation because the stilt failed to support the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff was not a 'recalcitrant worker' as stilts were deemed appropriate for the task, and no instructions were given to use alternative safety equipment like ladders or scaffolds.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DecisionElevation-Related HazardStiltsRecalcitrant WorkerLiabilityProperty OwnerGeneral Contractor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Melber v. 6333 Main Street, Inc.

Plaintiff, a carpenter working on stilts, tripped over electrical conduit and fell, sustaining injuries. He and his wife sued, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which a divided Appellate Division affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the accident did not involve a hazard contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1). The court clarified that this statute applies only to elevation-related risks, and tripping on conduit at ground level, even while on stilts, does not fall within its scope, as the stilts performed their intended function of elevating the worker.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related risksWorker injuryConstruction site accidentStiltsSummary judgmentAppellate reviewAbsolute liabilityStatutory interpretationHazard identification
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marc A. Nicometi v. The Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC / Scott Pfohl v. Western New York Plumbing-Ellicott Plumbing and Remodeling Co.

A dissenting opinion by Chief Judge Lippman argues against dismissing a plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The dissent contends that stilts placed on ice present an 'elevation-related risk' analogous to ladders on slippery surfaces, thus falling under the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1). It critiques the majority's interpretation of *Melber v 6333 Main St.*, asserting that the statute should be construed liberally to protect workers. The opinion distinguishes this case from other 'trip and fall' cases by emphasizing that the combination of stilts/ladders and ice exacerbates elevation risks, referencing *Klein v City of New York* and *Bland v Manocherian* where equipment placement on slippery floors led to liability under the Labor Law.

Labor LawConstruction safetyFall protectionElevation hazardsScaffoldingStatutory constructionJudicial dissentPrecedent analysisWorkplace injuryEmployer liability
References
7
Case No. ADJ9474687
Regular
Jun 14, 2019

GUSTAVO NIEVES UGALDE vs. ROCKWELL DRYWALL, INC., STARR INDEMNITY, adjusted by YORK RISK MANAGEMENT GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior award and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding the applicant's psychiatric injury was a consequence of his physical injury, not directly from a violent act. The Board determined the applicant's fall from stilts, while accepted as industrial, did not meet the legal definition of a "violent act" required for an increased psychiatric impairment rating under Labor Code § 4660.1(c)(2)(A). Therefore, the case must be returned to allow the WCJ to first determine if the injury qualifies as "catastrophic" under § 4660.1(c)(2)(B) for potential increased psychiatric rating. The WCAB acknowledged the applicant's credible testimony regarding the use of stilts and the psychiatric QME's opinion on causation but found the issue of a "violent act" was not sufficiently established.

AOE/COEViolent ActCompensable ConsequencePsychiatric InjuryPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical EvaluatorVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 4660.1
References
11
Case No. CA 12-01962
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2013

NICOMETI, MARC A. v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC

Plaintiff Marc A. Nicometi commenced a common-law negligence and Labor Law action seeking damages for injuries sustained from a fall at a construction site. The plaintiff, while installing insulation at an elevated level using stilts, alleged his stilts slipped on ice. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, agreeing that Labor Law § 240 (1) applied due to an elevation-related risk. However, the appellate court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby denying the motion for partial summary judgment. Two justices dissented, arguing that plaintiff was not provided a proper safety device and his actions could not be the sole proximate cause.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related HazardStilts AccidentIce on WorksiteSole Proximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker SafetyPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicometi v. Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC

Plaintiff initiated a common-law negligence and Labor Law action to recover damages for injuries sustained from a fall at a construction site. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion, concluding that the fall from stilts on ice constituted an elevation-related risk covered by the Labor Law. However, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, denying the plaintiff's motion. The modification was based on a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's own actions, specifically working in an area where ice was present despite being directed not to, were the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Construction site accidentLabor LawElevation-related riskStiltsIce hazardSole proximate causePartial summary judgmentAppellate reviewWorkplace safetyNegligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doan v. Aiken & McGlauklin, Inc.

The appellate court reviewed an order from Supreme Court, Erie County, which had granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff Cary L. Doan on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Doan alleged injury from a fall while wearing stilts at a construction site owned by defendant Quaker Hollow, Ltd. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment. This was due to existing questions of fact regarding the accident's occurrence, specifically citing inconsistencies in testimony and the defendant's non-concession of the incident as described. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously modified the Supreme Court's decision, denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryStiltsFallFactual DisputeAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06846
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2022

Morin v. Heritage Bldrs. Group, LLC

Plaintiff Marco Morin, a taper, was injured in a fall at a construction site owned by Heritage Builders Group, LLC. He sued Heritage and subcontractor Joseph Dupuis, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially granted defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding triable issues of fact regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to conflicting expert testimony. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim because the Industrial Code section cited was inapplicable as plaintiff was not using stilts. Finally, the denial of Heritage's motion for indemnification against Dupuis was affirmed as premature due to unresolved liability and contractual ambiguities.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewElevation HazardScaffoldingExpert TestimonyContractual Dispute
References
27
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03868 [206 AD3d 468]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2022

Gonzalez v. DOLP 205 Props. II, LLC

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff Christian Gonzalez had sought summary judgment on liability after sustaining injuries from a fall while working on stilts. Defendant DOLP 205 Properties II LLC also moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of negligence claims and contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Amick Construction Corp., as well as for breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due to triable issues of fact concerning the scope of his duties and whether his actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Additionally, the Appellate Division denied DOLP's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract for failure to procure insurance claim against Amick, deeming it premature. The remainder of the Supreme Court's order, including the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against DOLP and the grant of contractual indemnification against Amick, was affirmed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardSafety DevicesContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceProximate CauseTriable Issues of FactAppellate Review
References
19
Showing 1-9 of 9 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