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
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1999

Sanzone v. National Elevator Inspection Service, Inc.

This appellate court modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning summary judgment motions. The initial order had granted summary judgment to National Elevator Inspection Service (NEIS) but denied it for Millar Elevator Industries (Millar). The appellate court determined that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment to NEIS, as there was a question of fact regarding whether NEIS assumed a tort duty by conducting a City-mandated elevator safety inspection, potentially breaching it through negligence and causing plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Millar, citing unresolved questions of fact about Millar's role in the elevator's maintenance and repair at the time of the accident. Consequently, the order was modified to deny NEIS's motion and otherwise affirmed.

Summary JudgmentElevator SafetyNegligent InspectionDuty of CareTort LiabilityForeseeable HarmInsurance UnderwritingWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewQuestions of Fact
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tahini Investments, Ltd. v. Bobrowsky

Plaintiff appealed two orders concerning a purchase-money mortgage and alleged misrepresentation during the sale of a 93-acre farm. Defendant, the seller, had represented the property as a horse farm, but industrial waste drums were later discovered. Plaintiff claimed defendant knew of the dumping site and failed to disclose it, constituting actionable misrepresentation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, denying knowledge and citing a disclaimer clause in the contract. The appellate court found triable issues of fact, stating that concealment of material facts can be misrepresentation, and a disclaimer does not always preclude claims if facts are peculiarly within the seller's knowledge. The court reversed the summary judgment, denying defendant’s motion and granting plaintiff’s motion to depose a nonparty witness.

MisrepresentationReal Estate SaleProperty DisclosureSummary Judgment ReversalMaterial Fact ConcealmentDisclaimer ClausePeculiar Knowledge DoctrineDeposition of Nonparty WitnessIndustrial Waste DiscoveryDutchess County Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braun v. Carey

This case involves an appeal by defendants from an order denying their motion to vacate a summary judgment previously granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for legal services, and the defendants initially denied retainer and services, though their answer contained an inadvertent admission. After the plaintiff obtained summary judgment, the defendants sought to vacate it, arguing they were denied the opportunity to respond to late-served reply affidavits and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the retainer and the extent of services. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to vacate, but the appellate court reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact were indeed present, making summary judgment inappropriate. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to vacate the original order and allowed them leave to serve an amended answer.

AppealSummary JudgmentMotion to VacateAmended AnswerTriable Issues of FactLegal ServicesRetainer AgreementProcedural ErrorAppellate ReviewCivil Practice Rules
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Hughes v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Plaintiff James Hughes, a concrete laborer, was injured on April 10, 2001, while working on a construction project when a concrete hose clogged and, upon premature disassembly, whipped around, striking him and another worker. Hughes and his wife sued the construction manager Tishman Westside Construction and concrete pumping service A & B Preferred Concrete Pumping Service, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. Tishman moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not control the work's means and methods. A & B cross-moved, claiming it only leased the truck and did not employ the operator. The Supreme Court initially denied both motions in part. On appeal, the higher court modified the order, granting Tishman's motion for summary judgment regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, dismissing those causes of action against Tishman, but otherwise affirmed the denial of A & B's cross-motion, citing triable issues of fact concerning the concrete pump operator's identity and employment relationship. The dissenting opinion argued for affirming the original order in its entirety against both defendants, asserting that sufficient evidence existed to raise a question of fact regarding Tishman's supervision and control over the work.

Construction accidentLabor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentSupervisory controlMeans and methodsSubcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor liabilityConcrete pumpPersonal injury
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1992

Samiani v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Michael Samiani was injured while performing construction work on a building owned by New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) when he allegedly stepped on an angle iron left by a subcontractor, Niagara Frontier Sheet Metal, Inc. Samiani and other plaintiffs commenced an action against NYSEG and Niagara. NYSEG moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, finding questions of fact regarding NYSEG's notice of the hazardous condition and the extent of indemnification. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that there was sufficient proof to raise a question of fact as to whether NYSEG, through its agent Cowper, exercised control over the work site and had notice of the dangerous condition under Labor Law § 200 (1). The court also found plaintiffs' claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), citing a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), was properly sustained. Finally, the court agreed that the issue of indemnification required a trial to determine the extent of negligence among the parties.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241Worksite ControlHazardous ConditionSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction Site Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1999

Gniewek v. Consolidated Edison Co.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed this order, citing the existence of triable issues of fact. Specifically, the court found questions of fact regarding whether the plaintiff qualified as a "recalcitrant worker" under Labor Law § 240 (1) and concerning the plaintiff's comparative negligence under Labor Law § 241 (6). The decision reiterated that summary judgment is granted only when there are no triable factual issues, and courts should avoid making credibility determinations.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityRecalcitrant WorkerComparative NegligenceLabor LawAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactQueens County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

GATTI, SARAHANN v. SCHWAB, RODGER J.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying summary judgment in an action for damages related to serious injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Sarahann Gatti alleged serious injuries, while the unnamed defendant contended that her spinal injuries were pre-existing from an earlier work-related incident. The Supreme Court's order was modified on appeal, with the appellate court granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the 90/180-day serious injury claim, a category the plaintiff had abandoned. However, the denial of summary judgment for other serious injury categories was affirmed, as the plaintiff successfully raised a triable issue of fact concerning causation through her treating orthopedic surgeon's opinion. The surgeon's testimony attributed Gatti's C6-7 disc injury and the aggravation of pre-existing neck and lower back issues to the accident in question, thus presenting a genuine issue for the trier of fact to resolve.

Motor vehicle accidentSerious injurySummary judgmentCausationSpinal injuriesDisc injuryAggravation of injuryOrthopedic surgeonWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1994

Mathew v. Marriott Facility Management

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied their motion for summary judgment. They argued that Marriott Facility Management was a "special employer" of the plaintiff and thus shielded from action due to the plaintiff's election of workers' compensation benefits from a general employer. The court rejected this argument, stating that the existence of a special employment relationship is typically a question of fact. The court found that an issue of fact remained, given the contract provisions between the appellants and the general employer. Therefore, the order denying the motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployerWorkers Compensation BenefitsIssue of FactContract ProvisionsAppellate DecisionEmployment RelationshipLiabilityKings County Supreme Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2011

Baisch, Inc. v. Pike Co.

This case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which denied the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for breach of a construction contract. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff failed to perform in a timely manner, provide adequate labor and materials, and abandoned the contract. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding that issues of fact existed regarding what constituted a reasonable time for performance when the contract did not specify it, and the adequacy of labor and materials supplied by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court determined there was an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's actions constituted an unqualified and clear refusal to perform the entire contract, which would be considered an anticipatory repudiation. The court also declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

construction contractbreach of contractsummary judgmenttimely performanceadequate labor and materialsanticipatory repudiationcontract abandonmentappellate reviewissues of factcontract interpretation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,804 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