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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Peter v. Nisseli Realty Co.

The defendant, ANI Entertainment, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Cyril Peter, sustained injuries when a ladder he was standing on during renovation work slid from beneath him, causing a fall. The plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case for liability. ANI Entertainment, Inc. failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact concerning the injured plaintiff's conduct as a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentRenovation WorkConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionLiabilityRecalcitrant WorkerProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1991

Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union 851

The Supreme Court of New York County affirmed an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendants' alleged negligence in the control and operation of a truck in which the plaintiff was a passenger. Further issues of fact were identified concerning the reasonableness of precautionary steps taken by the defendants in the face of striking workers' picketing. Additionally, the court noted triable issues regarding the foreseeability of injury and whether an alleged intervening criminal act constituted foreseeable harm shaping the duty of care.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceTriable Issues of FactForeseeabilityIntervening ActTruck OperationPicket LineWorker StrikeCPLR 3212Appellate Affirmation
References
2
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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04380 [230 AD3d 1122]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2024

Injai v. Circle F 2243 Jackson (DE), LLC

The plaintiff, Ronny Injai, allegedly sustained personal injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder at a construction site in February 2019. He was performing work on property owned by Circle F 2243 Jackson (DE), LLC, where Zhong Wang Construction Services, Inc., served as the general contractor. Injai commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). He sought summary judgment on the issue of liability for the Labor Law claims. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion, citing triable issues of fact regarding the accident's occurrence and the ladder's security. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the plaintiff's submissions failed to conclusively eliminate all triable issues of fact.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafety DevicesProximate CauseTriable Issues of FactContractor Liability
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yax v. Development Team, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability concerning alleged violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the order. Regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the defendant successfully raised a triable issue of fact, supported by Angelo Kambitsis's affidavit, suggesting the plaintiff might have been a recalcitrant worker. The Supreme Court's consideration of Kambitsis's affidavit was deemed a provident exercise of discretion, despite his non-disclosure as a witness, as the plaintiff had prior knowledge of his existence and the defendant offered an excuse for the oversight. For the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while the defendant's expert affidavit was inadmissible due to non-disclosure, Kambitsis's affidavit was still sufficient to create a triable issue of fact concerning the reasonableness and adequacy of the worksite conditions.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmanceRecalcitrant Worker DefenseDiscovery RulesExpert Testimony AdmissibilityAffidavit EvidenceProximate Cause
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, current and former correction officers, sued the City of New York alleging race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on employment discrimination claims for all plaintiffs under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, finding that assignment to a rotating 'wheel' or undesirable permanent posts did not constitute an adverse employment action in the discrimination context. Summary judgment was also granted against O'Brien's retaliation claims, as her protected activity postdated the alleged retaliatory actions, and against Quick's standalone sexual harassment claim, which was deemed not severe enough to alter employment conditions. However, the court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims for Adams, Castleberry, Monche, and Quick, finding issues of fact regarding whether reassignments were retaliatory. Summary judgment was also denied for hostile work environment claims (general and Monche's individual sexual harassment claim) due to triable issues of fact regarding pervasive derogatory comments, discriminatory bathroom policies, and Supervisor Olivo's conduct towards Monche. Finally, summary judgment was denied on the Monell claim under § 1983, as there were triable issues regarding the EEO's corroboration policy leading to deliberate indifference to constitutional violations.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionMunicipal LiabilitySection 1983Monell Claim
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1997

Foti v. Arctic Ocean Steamship Co.

Vito Foti, a longshore worker, filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries after allegedly slipping and falling on grease aboard a vessel owned by Arctic Ocean Steamship Co., Ltd. Arctic moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing there were no triable issues of fact. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Arctic's motion. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the grease constituted a dangerous condition, if it was a proximate cause of the fall, and whether Arctic breached its duty to intervene.

personal injurylongshore workerslip and fallvessel owner liabilitysummary judgment motiondangerous conditionproximate causeduty to interveneappellate reviewpremises liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gavigan v. City of New York

A sanitation worker was injured after sustaining an electric shock from a lamppost with an exposed copper wire. The lamppost was under a maintenance contract between the City of New York and Petrocelli. The motion court properly denied the City's motion to dismiss, as triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the City had prior written notice of the defect. Evidence included complaints received by Petrocelli from the City about unauthorized access to the lamppost's wiring and malfunctioning traffic lights. Furthermore, Petrocelli's motion to dismiss was also denied, as there are triable issues concerning its performance of contractual inspection duties and whether its failure contributed to the plaintiff's injury.

Electric ShockLamppost DefectSanitation Worker InjuryMunicipal NegligenceContractual LiabilityDuty to InspectNotice of DefectTriable Issues of FactMotion DenialAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 31258(U)
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2007

Perrino v. Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a lower court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding a Labor Law § 200 claim. The case involved a plaintiff who was injured by tripping over an uncordoned valve at a construction site. The appellate court found triable issues of fact concerning the defendants' authority to control the activity causing the injury, citing evidence that defendants played a significant role in designating equipment locations, oversaw cordoning off dangerous areas, and employed coordinators for regular safety inspections. Additionally, a triable issue existed regarding defendants' notice of the dangerous condition due to frequent site inspections.

Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentWorksite SafetyCommon Law DutyControl of ActivityNotice of Dangerous ConditionTriable Issue of FactAppellate DivisionNew York Supreme CourtConstruction Injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 8,799 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