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

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08791 [178 AD3d 473]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2019

Garcia v. SMJ 210 W. 18 LLC

Plaintiff Juan Garcia was injured when struck by a falling piece of DensGlass while working on a temporary exterior platform on the 21st floor of a building under construction. He was dismantling a bridge linked to an exterior hoist elevator when the material, matching a missing piece from the floor above, struck him. The court reversed the lower court's decision, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that the exterior facade was incomplete and workers were performing patch work above. Additionally, the court denied the defendants-respondents' cross motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the necessity of overhead protection in an area exposed to falling objects.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyOverhead ProtectionBuilding Under Construction
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01255 [158 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2018

Pena v. Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1

Juan Pena, an injured worker, sued Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust Number 1 and Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) under Labor Law § 240 (1) after sustaining injuries from a fall off an unsecured and wobbling ladder. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Pena partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against SGI. SGI appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Pena's deposition testimony sufficiently established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that SGI failed to raise a triable issue of fact, particularly regarding the provision of adequate safety devices or whether Pena was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder accidentUnsecured ladderFall from heightConstruction site accidentAppellate decisionPrima facie caseTriable issue of factProximate cause
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lombardo v. Park Tower Management Ltd.

Plaintiff, a metal trade journeyman, was injured when a step on a three-step staircase broke as he descended into a pit. He sought partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion, and this appellate court subsequently modified that decision. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The majority reasoned that the staircase was a permanent fixture, not a safety device, and the 18-inch fall was not an "elevation-related risk" covered by the statute. A dissenting opinion argued that the permanency of the staircase, the plaintiff's work location, and the modest height differential were irrelevant, asserting that the injury directly resulted from gravity, thus falling under Labor Law § 240 (1) protection.

Labor LawSection 240 (1)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related RiskPermanent StructureSafety DeviceGravityAppellate DecisionNew York LawStaircase Accident
References
16
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krauskopf v. Perales

The City of New York initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge an audit conducted by the State Department of Social Services (SDSS). The audit alleged that the City had failed to comply with record-keeping requirements under 18 NYCRR 310.1 (g) for 'State-charge' recipients, leading to an asserted overpayment of $18,266,412. The court determined that the State's audit was defective on three grounds: misinterpreting Social Services Law § 117 (1) regarding nonresident status, misconstruing 18 NYCRR 310.1 (g) by disregarding applicant interviews for verification, and imposing an arbitrary standard of proof on the City. These errors were found to defeat the purpose of Social Services Law § 62 (3). Consequently, the petition was granted, the audit and the State's recoupment decision were declared void, and the City was entitled to reimbursement for the disputed amount.

State-charge statusPublic assistanceHome ReliefAid to Dependent ChildrenAudit challengeReimbursement disputeSocial Services Law interpretationAdministrative LawBurden of proofArbitrary and capricious determination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ8730224
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

SERGIO BERMUDEZ vs. CERRITOS AUTO REPAIR CENTER, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Tri County Medical Group's (TCMG) petition for reconsideration of a finding that its lien claim was barred by the 18-month limitation in Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board majority held that because TCMG's last date of service was January 29, 2015, after the July 1, 2013 effective date for the shorter period, the 18-month limit applied. TCMG's lien was filed over 18 months after this last date of service and was therefore untimely. A dissenting commissioner argued that for continuously provided services crossing the July 1, 2013 date, the three-year limit should apply to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code Section 4903.5(a)lien claim18-month limitation periodthree-year limitation perioddate services were providedlast date of servicecontinuously provided servicespetition for reconsiderationdenial of lienWCJ report
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Geddes v. Salvation Army

This case involves an appeal by a self-insured employer from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The Board ruled that the claimant, a commissioned minister, was a covered employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Law at the time he injured his right index finger operating a baling machine. The Board found the claimant was engaged in manual labor, not ministerial duties, and thus not excluded from coverage under Section 3, Subd. 1, Group 18. The court affirmed the decision, concurring that the exclusionary provision for 'commissioned ministers' in group 18 did not apply here, as operating a baling machine constitutes hazardous employment under group 7 of subdivision 1 of section 3, entitling the claimant to an award. The court also clarified that the exclusion for commissioned ministers in group 18 does not extend beyond that specific group.

Workmen’s Compensation LawHazardous EmploymentMinisterial ExclusionBaling Machine InjuryManual WorkEmployee CoverageAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSection 3 Group 18Section 3 Group 7
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,485 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