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. 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. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miraglia v. H&L Holding Corp.

This opinion addresses post-judgment motions in a personal injury case arising from an accident where the plaintiff, an employee of Lane & Sons Construction Corp., was injured at a site owned by H&L Holding Corporation. Following a jury verdict and appellate modification, Lane moved to amend the May 4, 2005 judgment to provide for entry of judgment solely against H&L, arguing that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 prevented direct recovery against Lane by the plaintiff. Plaintiff cross-moved for an order of attachment or a constructive trust on proceeds paid to H&L by its insurer. H&L cross-moved to amend the judgment to reflect its right to judgment over against Lane for the full amount and for defense costs, based on contractual and common-law indemnification, given Lane had agreed to indemnify H&L and assumed its defense at trial. The court denied Lane's motion, ruling that amending the judgment would affect a substantial right of the plaintiff and go beyond ministerial correction permitted by CPLR 5019 (a). Plaintiff's cross-motion was also denied. H&L's cross-motion for reimbursement of costs and attorneys' fees from Lane was granted, and a hearing was scheduled to determine the amount.

Workers' Compensation LawLabor LawCPLR 5019(a)IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationPost-Judgment MotionsAmendment of JudgmentNondelegable DutyOwner Liability
References
19
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08022
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2014

Matter of Sean P.H. (Rosemarie H.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order of the Family Court, Richmond County, which found that the mother, Rosemarie H., permanently neglected her child, Sean P.H., terminated her parental rights, and transferred guardianship and custody to Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families and the Commissioner of the Administration for Children's Services. The mother's contentions regarding deprivation of her right to be present and ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected, as her due process rights were met and she received meaningful representation. The court found clear and convincing evidence of permanent neglect due to her failure to plan for the child's return and comply with the service plan, and determined that termination was in the child's best interests.

Parental RightsChild NeglectFamily LawAppealsDue Process RightsLegal RepresentationFoster Care SystemGuardianshipAdoptionService Plan
References
23
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. 2015 NY Slip Op 08836
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2015

Matter of Morgan A.H.-P. (Ta-Mirra J.H.)

This case concerns an appeal by Morgan A.H.-P., a child, from an order of the Family Court, Kings County. The Family Court order dismissed a petition filed by New Alternatives for Children (the Agency) to terminate the mother's parental rights on the ground of permanent neglect. The child was initially placed in foster care in 2010. After the child's transfer to the Agency in 2011, the permanency goal was changed from reunification to adoption, a decision contested by the mother. The Agency subsequently petitioned to terminate parental rights, relying on documentary evidence during the fact-finding hearing. The Family Court found that the Agency failed to demonstrate diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship, instead concluding that the Agency actively undermined it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, determining that the Agency did not meet its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence, thus upholding the dismissal of the termination petition.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectFamily CourtAppellate ReviewChild WelfareDiligent EffortsParent-Child RelationshipTermination of Parental RightsSocial Services LawFoster Care
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

DiPilato v. H. Park Central Hotel, L.L.C.

An electrician’s helper employed by Angel was injured when a hotel elevator plunged 18 floors during renovation. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, denied dismissal for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence against the hotel owner (HPC) and elevator company (ACE), and dismissed a contractual indemnification claim against Angel. This appellate order modified the lower court's decision, vacating the ruling on res ipsa loquitur and denying summary dismissal of VJB's contractual indemnification claim against Angel. The court found triable issues regarding HPC and ACE's control and notice of elevator defects, and VJB's role as construction manager. The Labor Law § 240 (1) dismissal was affirmed as the elevator was not a protective device under the statute.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturContractual IndemnificationElevator SafetyConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryThird-Party ClaimAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2010

Fox v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.

A mechanic employed by Garrity Electric, Inc. was injured after falling from a ladder while replacing light fixture components at a retail store leased by H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed a third-party complaint against Maintenance, Etc., LLC. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision, ruling that replacing transformers constituted a 'repair' under Labor Law § 240 (1), not routine maintenance, given the context of the work. The court also upheld the dismissal of the third-party complaint, finding Maintenance, Etc., LLC was merely a facilitator and not negligent or in control of the work.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyElectrical WorkConstruction LawThird-Party LiabilityIndemnification
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ozzimo v. H.E.S., Inc.

Ronald Ozzimo, a pipe layer, was injured at the Mill Seat Landfill, owned by Monroe County, while working for Consolidated Constructors and Builders, Inc., under an agreement with general contractor H.E.S., Inc. He fell into an open trench, injuring his back. Ozzimo sued H.E.S. and the County for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court initially erred in deeming Ozzimo a special employee of H.E.S. and in dismissing certain Labor Law claims. The appellate court modified the order, reinstating most claims against H.E.S. (except for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim) and reinstating specific Labor Law § 241 (6) claims against both defendants, while upholding the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against all and the Labor Law § 200 claim against the County.

Special Employee StatusLabor LawConstruction Site SafetyTrench AccidentNegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySummary JudgmentSpecific Safety StandardsAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Homart Development Co.

Plaintiff, a journeyman carpenter, was injured on a construction site in Latham Farms Shopping Center in Albany County while hoisting an enclosure panel. He sued the site owners, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims but allowed a § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-6.1 (h) to proceed to trial. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, both parties appealed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding 12 NYCRR 23-6.1 (h) inapplicable to the specific activity. However, the court also ruled that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) was a specific regulation that should have been submitted to the jury. The case was remitted for a new trial solely on the issue of the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d).

Construction site injuryLabor Law § 241(6)Hoist operationTag linesAppellate reviewSummary judgmentJury verdictRegulatory interpretationProximate causeNew trial
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 13,860 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