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
Jul 31, 2009

Rice v. West 37th Group, LLC

Plaintiff's decedent, James Rice, a steamfitter, was injured in November 2004 after falling from a short, unsecured ladder while installing a sprinkler system. He commenced an action against the building owner, general contractor, and subcontractor Cord, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed claims against Cord and Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims against other defendants, but granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against the owner and general contractor. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its decision, finding no readily available adequate safety device to absolve defendants of liability. The Appellate Division affirmed the summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and dismissed the appeal regarding spoliation sanctions.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold LawElevation-related injurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesWorker NegligenceAppellate DivisionSpoliation of EvidenceConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00832 [224 AD3d 1052]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Singh v. Atlas NY Constr. Corp.

Sukhwinder Singh, a claimant, was injured while working for Atlas NY Construction Corporation, a subcontractor on a construction project. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (NLF) denied liability for the claim, asserting it had canceled its workers' compensation policy for nonpayment of premiums prior to the accident. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled in favor of NLF, placing liability on the general contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, concluding there was insufficient evidence of proper policy cancellation by NLF. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that carriers must strictly comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) for policy cancellation and that the Board's credibility determinations, when supported by substantial evidence, are not to be disturbed. The court found NLF failed to meet its burden of establishing proper cancellation.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationInsurance Coverage DisputeNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceNonpayment of PremiumsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationsSubstantial EvidenceBurden of Proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2010

Nascimento v. Bridgehampton Construction Corp.

This appeal concerns subcontractor liability under New York Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The plaintiff, an employee of a sub-sub-subcontractor (Figueiredo Construction), was injured in a fall. The general contractor was Bridgehampton Construction Corp., which subcontracted to Bayview Building & Framing Corp. (appellant), which then subcontracted to R&L Carpentry Corp., which further subcontracted to Figueiredo Construction. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) against Bayview and denied Bayview's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that while differing witness testimony did not preclude summary judgment for Labor Law § 240 (1), it did for Labor Law § 241 (6) due to the need for a specific Industrial Code violation. Crucially, the court held that a question of fact exists regarding whether Bayview, as a subcontractor, had the authority to supervise and control the work, thereby qualifying as a statutory agent of the general contractor. This question of fact precludes summary judgment for the plaintiff on liability. Therefore, the order was modified to deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability, and Bayview's cross-motion denial was affirmed.

Subcontractor LiabilityLabor LawStatutory AgentSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentsWorker SafetyFraming WorkDelegation of DutySupervision and ControlQuestion of Fact
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Canka v. Coalition for Homeless, Inc.

Shaban Canka, an employee of subcontractor 786 Iron Works Corp., sustained serious injuries after falling three stories through an unprotected stairwell opening at a construction site. The building was owned by Coalition for the Homeless, Inc., with B & J General Contractors, Inc. as the general contractor, who then subcontracted work to Cosa Development Corp. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability against the owner, general contractor, and subcontractor, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241-a. Additionally, summary judgment for common-law indemnification was granted to Coalition and B & J against 786 Iron Works Corp., as they were held vicariously liable without directing or controlling the work. 786 Iron Works Corp. appealed these orders, but the appellate court affirmed all orders, including the denial of further discovery.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawStatutory LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityFall from Height
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. East 87th & 88th Street Contracting Co.

This case addresses a motion to set aside a $75,000 verdict, focusing on the interpretation of the 1969 amendment to Labor Law section 241 concerning general contractors' liability for construction worker injuries. The plaintiff, injured in 1971 while working for a subcontractor, sued the general contractor, who then sought indemnification from the subcontractor-employer. The court analyzed conflicting appellate decisions regarding whether the amendment eliminated the requirement to establish the general contractor's active control over the work. Ultimately, the court concluded that the law regarding control remains unchanged and set aside the verdict, dismissing the complaints. The decision also delved into policy considerations concerning workmen's compensation as the exclusive remedy against employers and incentives for workplace safety.

Labor Law § 241General Contractor LiabilityConstruction Worker InjurySubcontractor IndemnificationWorkmen's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate Division ConflictSafety RegulationsTort ActionEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morin v. Machnick Builders, Ltd.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by a subcontractor, was injured in a work-related accident when an extension ladder he was using slipped. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing that the ladder was not properly secured and constituted a statutory violation. Defendants, the general contractor and property owner, cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the court found that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) because the ladder was not properly placed and inadequate safety devices were provided, establishing a proximate cause for the injury. The recalcitrant worker defense was also rejected, as plaintiff used the only available safety device and merely failing to follow coworker's advice did not meet the criteria for recalcitrance. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffolding LawLadder SafetyWorkplace AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1998

Pope v. Supreme-K.R.W. Construction Corp.

Alston Pope, a carpenter, was injured by a falling beam on a construction site in Brooklyn and sued the general contractor, building owner, and subcontractor under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Pope summary judgment on liability and partially granted the general contractor/owner summary judgment on indemnity against the subcontractor. On appeal, the court affirmed Pope's liability finding and the general contractor/owner's entitlement to common-law and contractual indemnity. However, the order was modified to include attorney's fees, expenses, costs, and disbursements in the indemnification owed by the subcontractor to the general contractor and building owner.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawIndemnityContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnitySummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larabee v. Triangle Steel, Inc.

The case involves a wrongful death action filed by the administratrix of her husband's estate against Triangle Steel, Inc., and John Walsh (doing business as Walsh Steel Service), after the husband's fatal fall at a construction site. The defendants were the general contractor and subcontractor, respectively. Special Term granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding the defendants absolutely liable under Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). On appeal, the court affirmed the order, but clarified the basis for liability. It ruled that absolute liability cannot be imposed under Labor Law § 241(6) as it is subject to affirmative defenses, distinguishing it from the specific duties of Labor Law § 240(1), which does impose absolute liability. The court also rejected the subcontractor's argument against statutory applicability, affirming its role as an 'agent.'

Wrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityNondelegable DutyContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceAssumption of RiskSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2001

Dutton v. Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd.

This case involved an amended judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning personal injury damages awarded to two construction workers. The judgment apportioned liability 20% against the general contractor and 80% against the subcontractor/employer. The court reviewed post-trial motions from the subcontractor to dismiss a contractual indemnification claim by the general contractor and motions from both parties to set aside future lost earnings awards as excessive. The court unanimously affirmed the amended judgment, finding the indemnification clause enforceable as it allowed for partial, not full, indemnification. The apportionment of liability was also upheld, supported by evidence of negligence from both the general contractor and the subcontractor. Additionally, the court found the awards for future lost earnings, including evidence of reasonably certain wage increases and application of CPLR 5041 (e) adjustment, to be proper.

Construction injuryPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLiability apportionmentLost earnings awardGeneral contractor negligenceSubcontractor negligenceIndemnification clause enforceabilityStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,500 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