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

People v. Formica

The case involves defendant Kenneth Formica, a partner in Formica Construction Corporation, facing a seven-count indictment including manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The charges stem from a trench collapse on December 15, 2003, in Richmond County, which resulted in the death of Lorenzo Pavia and injury to John Paci. The defendant, despite his experience and awareness of safety regulations requiring shoring or sloping for trenches over five feet deep, directed workers into an unsafe, unshored trench. The court denied Formica's motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that the evidence presented to the grand jury was legally sufficient to establish foreseeability of the trench collapse and support the charges, distinguishing the case from prior precedents.

Trench CollapseConstruction AccidentManslaughterCriminally Negligent HomicideReckless EndangermentAssaultSafety RegulationsForeseeabilityGrand JuryIndictment
References
10
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

Pinheiro v. Montrose Improvement District

Plaintiff Joao M. Pinheiro was injured when a trench wall collapsed while he was working on a pipeline installation project. He filed a lawsuit against the defendants, including a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under this law. On appeal, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' interpretation of Labor Law § 240 (1), ruling that trench collapses are not among the special hazards contemplated by the statute. The order was modified to grant partial summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and affirmed as modified.

Labor Law § 240(1)Trench CollapseFalling Earth and StonesConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyExcavation Safety
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferreira v. Village of Kings Point

A plaintiff was injured when a trench collapsed during water main repairs. He initiated an action against the Village of Kings Point and Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to the Village on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, ruling that trench collapses are not within its ambit. However, the court erred by granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the Industrial Code provisions 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 and 23-4.4, relied upon by the plaintiff, were deemed sufficiently specific to support the claim. The case examines owner liability under Labor Law and the specificity required for Industrial Code violations.

Trench collapseLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4.2Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-4.4Owner liabilitySummary judgmentNondelegable dutyConstruction site accidentExcavation safety
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Telergy Network Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Luc D. Allen, an employee of Marais Trenching, Inc., was seriously injured while repairing a trenching machine on a fiber optic cable project. He and his wife filed an action against Telergy Network Services, Inc. (owner) and Mastec North America, Inc. d/b/a Wilde Construction (general contractor), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as a contractual third-party beneficiary claim. The defendants and third-party defendant Marais Trenching, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the Supreme Court, dismissing all claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs’ claims under Labor Law § 200, § 241 (6), and the third-party beneficiary claim were reviewed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no control by Telergy or Wilde over the repair work, no violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (f), and that the plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the highway work permit or the contract between Telergy and Wilde.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentTrenching AccidentConstruction Site SafetyThird-Party Beneficiary ClaimAppellate AffirmationEmployer ResponsibilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityUnsafe Work Condition
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04415
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

Rivas v. Seward Park Hous. Corp.

William Rivas, a laborer, was injured when a trench wall collapsed while he was working at a depth of approximately 12 feet. He sued Seward Park Housing Corporation, Fred Smith Plumbing and Heating Company, and Onsite Construction Enterprises, asserting a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied Rivas's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim and granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the claim, reasoning that a trench cave-in was not an elevation-related hazard. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the trench cave-in presented an elevation-related hazard within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240 (1), especially in light of the Court of Appeals decisions in Runner and Wilinski. The court concluded that the defendants failed to provide adequate protection against a gravity-related accident and are liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)trench collapseelevation-related hazardsummary judgmentexcavation accidentconstruction safetygravity-related accidentshoringappellate reviewFirst Department
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1983

Copertino v. Ward

Plaintiff, a worker for A-l Sewer Company, was injured when a trench caved in while he was replacing a collapsed sewer pipe connecting the defendant's single-family residence to the municipal main in the Town of New Windsor. The trench extended from the defendant's lawn to the public street. Plaintiff sued the defendant, a homeowner, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), arguing he was an 'owner' under the statute. Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending he was not an owner as the accident did not occur on his property, but the Supreme Court denied his motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, holding that the defendant, as an easement holder with a primary interest in the work, qualified as an 'owner' under Labor Law § 241(6) and § 200, despite the work occurring partially on a public street.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Owner LiabilityEasement HolderExcavation AccidentSewer Line RepairNondelegable DutyAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1998

Trillo v. City of New York

Manuel Trillo, a carpenter/timberman, sustained severe injuries after a wooden sheeting structure collapsed while he was installing it in an eight-foot deep trench on a construction site. He fell along with a co-worker and was struck by a falling brace, resulting in an ankle fracture and soft tissue damage. Trillo's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was initially denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding that the collapse constituted a difference in elevation and a risk covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that the defendants failed to provide required safety devices, which was the proximate cause of the accident, thus granting summary judgment on liability and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold LawConstruction Site InjuryFall AccidentTrench CollapseSummary Judgment MotionLiability DeterminationInadequate Safety DevicesAppellate ReversalProximate Cause
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Reagan

This document presents a dissenting opinion regarding the dismissal of manslaughter and reckless endangerment charges against defendants Roger Reagan, Jr., Westar Mechanical, Inc., and 5L Enterprises, Inc. The charges stem from an incident where two workers drowned during a trench collapse at an excavation site. The County Court had dismissed these counts, citing insufficient evidence of recklessness. Judge O’Brien, in dissent, argues that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to establish that the defendants were aware of and consciously disregarded substantial risks, constituting a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. The dissent emphasizes the defendants' knowledge of trench instability and a pressurized sprinkler pipe, along with their failure to implement required safety measures like shoring, and concludes that the deaths were a foreseeable outcome of their reckless actions. Therefore, the dissenting judges advocate for reversing the dismissal order and reinstating the indictment counts.

Criminal NegligenceManslaughter Second DegreeReckless Endangerment Second DegreeTrench Collapse FatalityOSHA ViolationsSufficiency of Grand Jury EvidenceRecklessness StandardCorporate Criminal LiabilityForeseeable RiskIndictment Reinstatement
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 309 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