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
Feb 20, 2024

Brown v. Window King LLC

Plaintiff Mary Elena Brown sustained personal injuries when a screwdriver dropped by a window installer, Wilson Rivera, hit her head in a parking lot of a condominium building managed by Stillman Management Inc. The installer was working for Window King LLC. Stillman moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty, but the court found questions of fact regarding its control over the premises. Window King also sought summary judgment, contending Rivera was an independent contractor, but issues of fact arose regarding Rivera's employment status and potential vicarious liability. The Supreme Court initially granted Window King's motion and denied Stillman's. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Stillman's cross-claims against Window King, and otherwise affirmed, finding unresolved factual disputes regarding both Stillman's duty of maintenance and Window King's potential vicarious liability for Rivera's negligence.

Summary judgmentPersonal injuryVicarious liabilityRespondeat superiorIndependent contractorProperty managementPremises liabilityAppellate reviewCross-claimsTort liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2015

In re Barrier Window Systems, Inc.

Barrier Window Systems, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Barrier liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its installers. Barrier, which transitioned from installing to selling building products and arranging installations via subcontractors, argued it was not a contractor under the Fair Play Act and that its installers were independent contractors. The Board determined that Barrier continued to engage in construction by arranging installations and that the installers did not meet all three criteria of the Fair Play Act's ABC test for independent contractor status. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, thereby upholding Barrier's liability.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorWorker MisclassificationConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawABC TestEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative AppealStatutory Presumption
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02559
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Ortega v. Panther Siding & Windows, Inc.

The plaintiff Rene Ortega was injured after falling from a roof while working as a foreman for a subcontractor, Golden Hammer Construction Group, Corp., which was working for Panther Siding & Windows, Inc. Ortega sued Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., established it was neither the general contractor nor an agent of the owner at the accident site, thus lacking the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Ortega failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryFall from heightLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorConstruction AccidentElevation-related riskSafety devices
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamson v. 16 West 57th Street Co.

Bernard Williamson, a window cleaner employed by Audobon Window Cleaning, Inc., sustained grave injuries after falling from a ledge while cleaning windows at premises owned by 16 West 57th Street Co. and leased by Mother Works, Inc. Williamson, through his guardian, sued the owner and lessee alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, and 240. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 liability. The defendants appealed, contending Labor Law § 240 was inapplicable to window cleaners and preempted by Labor Law § 202. The appellate court affirmed that Labor Law § 240 applies to professional window cleaners and is not preempted by Labor Law § 202, but granted summary judgment to the appellants dismissing the Labor Law § 202 cause of action due to a lack of demonstrated violation.

Window Cleaner InjuryFall AccidentLabor Law ApplicationStatutory PreemptionBuilding Owner LiabilityLessee LiabilitySummary Judgment RulingWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskNew York Appellate Court
References
23
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00079
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2021

D.A. v. New York City Hous. Auth.

This personal injury case involves an infant plaintiff who fell from a seventh-floor window maintained by the New York City Housing Authority. The defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied, and that denial was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department. The court found issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's size at the time of the accident and the extent to which the window opened. Additionally, the defendant failed to establish prima facie that its employees did not improperly install the window guard, contributing to the unsafe condition.

Personal InjuryInfant PlaintiffWindow FallWindow GuardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ReviewCredibility of TestimonyExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGill v. Qudsi

This case addresses liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a plaintiff who fell from a ladder while removing a second-story window. The court clarified that while the ladder itself might have been adequate for elevation, the defendant's failure to provide a separate safety device for handling and lowering the 40-50 pound window constituted a distinct elevation-related hazard. This omission was found to be a statutory violation and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident. The court further emphasized that claims of the plaintiff's contributory negligence or carelessness were irrelevant to establishing liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The lower court's order was affirmed.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Elevation HazardLadder FallWindow Removal AccidentSafety Device FailureProximate CauseContributory Negligence ImmaterialStatutory ViolationWorkplace InjuryConstruction Site Safety
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2003

Medina v. MSDW 140 Broadway Property, L.L.C.

A window washer sued a building owner and a rigging company after falling four feet from a window washing rig due to a broken handrail while attempting to access a scaffold. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court determined that the steps to the scaffold were a 'device' within the meaning of the Labor Law and that the rigging company, responsible for installation and maintenance, acted as the owner's 'agent.' Defendants' appeal, raising new arguments about factual issues and pleading deficiencies, was unanimously affirmed as these claims were improperly presented for the first time on appeal.

Window Washing Rig AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Falling from HeightPremises LiabilityStatutory AgentPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHandrail FailureElevated Work SafetyBuilding Owner Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Partridge v. Waterloo Central School District

Michael L. Partridge, Jr. sustained injuries in a construction accident while installing a window, falling from a cardboard-covered countertop after the window fell. He initiated a Labor Law action. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, recognizing Partridge as a "falling worker" due to the absence of safety devices. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court determined that the third-party defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, specifically regarding alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.15 and 23-1.16, should have been granted as these regulations do not specify when safety devices are required. However, the court found an unresolved factual issue concerning the applicability of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) regarding a slippery elevated working surface caused by the loose cardboard.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentFalling WorkerSafety DevicesElevated Work SiteSlippery ConditionStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 537 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