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
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 06348
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2025

Reyes v. Rahman

The plaintiff, Jose Cuervo Reyes, appealed an order concerning personal injuries sustained from falling off a ladder on property owned by defendant Mohammad Rahman. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, based on a homeowner's exemption, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing triable issues of fact regarding the homeowner's exemption's applicability, specifically concerning the property's commercial purpose and the defendant's intent for it to be a three-family dwelling. The denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was affirmed due to similar triable issues of fact.

Labor Law ViolationsHomeowner's Exemption ApplicabilitySummary Judgment StandardsAppellate Review of OrdersPersonal Injury LitigationLadder Accident LiabilityCommercial vs. Residential PropertyTriable Issues of FactConstruction Worker SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02263 [44 NY3d 329]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2025

Nellenback v. Madison County

Michael Nellenback sued Madison County under the Child Victims Act for negligent supervision after being sexually abused by his social services caseworker, Karl Hoch, between 1993 and 1996. Nellenback alleged the County was negligent in hiring, supervising, and retaining Hoch, who was later convicted of abusing other children. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the County, which the Appellate Division affirmed, finding no triable issue of fact on the negligent supervision claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Nellenback failed to prove the County had actual or constructive notice of Hoch's propensities or that lax supervision would have revealed the abuse, and that evidence for this was purely speculative. The dissenting opinion argued that there were triable issues of fact regarding the County's lax supervision and its failure to identify warning signs.

Child Victims ActNegligent SupervisionSexual AbuseSocial Services CaseworkerSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewCourt of AppealsEmployee MisconductChild Welfare Standards
References
43
Case No. CA 10-01057
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

KUHN, JAMES C. v. CAMELOT ASSOCIATION, INC.

Plaintiff James C. Kuhn, an employee, sustained injuries when a Gradall forklift tipped over while he was working on the roof of a building owned by defendant Camelot Association, Inc. He initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. The Supreme Court granted his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its prior decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff had established the absence of necessary safety devices and that the defendant failed to create a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. A dissenting opinion argued that a triable issue of fact existed, as the plaintiff had access to a ladder but chose to use the forklift.

Worker's InjuryConstruction AccidentForklift IncidentSafety DevicesSummary JudgmentProximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate ReviewLabor Law ClaimPersonal Injury
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 13,372 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