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

O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

Sean O’Sullivan, a cement and concrete laborer, was injured on October 14, 2000, when he tripped over a pipe at a multistory construction site in Manhattan. The property was owned by 251 East 51st Street Corp., with IDI Construction Company as the general contractor. O'Sullivan's employer, Cosner Construction, was the concrete subcontractor, and Teman Electrical Construction, Inc. was the electrical subcontractor. This document presents a dissenting opinion arguing that while there is no viable claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), questions of fact remain regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which should preclude summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action. The dissent highlights that the pipe, which was permanently embedded in the floor and not barricaded or sufficiently visible, could constitute an unsafe condition. It suggests the owner and general contractor might be liable due to their potential input into the pipe's placement and the general contractor's assigned 'site safety manager'. The dissenting judges would reverse the extent of denying summary judgment for the defendant with respect to the Labor Law § 200 claim and reinstate it.

Construction accidentTrip and fallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceWorkplace safetySummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityProperty owner liabilitySubcontractor responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2006

Ritzer v. 6 East 43rd Street Corp.

In this Supreme Court Order from New York County, an action by a construction worker against a construction site owner and general contractor for personal injuries was reviewed. The plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the site owner was denied due to an insufficient affidavit. Concurrently, the defendants' cross motion to compel the plaintiff's acceptance of their amended answer was granted. The court noted that most of the delay in answering was attributed to the site owner's insurer and found no resulting prejudice to the plaintiff. The decision to deny the default judgment and grant the cross motion was unanimously affirmed by a panel of judges.

construction accidentpersonal injuryscaffold falldefault judgment motionamended answerindemnification clauseinsurer responsibilityappellate reviewcivil procedurecourt discretion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1997

Ortega v. Catamount Construction Corp.

A laborer sued a site owner, construction manager, and an asbestos removal prime contractor for personal injuries sustained at a renovation site. The Supreme Court found the defendants liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), apportioning fault among them and a defaulting asbestos removal subcontractor, who was the plaintiff's employer. The site owner was awarded common-law indemnity against the construction manager and asbestos contractors, and contractual indemnity against the prime contractor. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by vacating the apportionment of fault due to being against the weight of the evidence and ordered a new trial for this issue, while affirming the remainder of the judgment. The court also affirmed the common-law indemnity for the owner against the construction manager and addressed the construction manager's unpreserved liability argument.

Personal InjuryRenovation SiteLabor Law 240(1)Apportionment of FaultIndemnityConstruction SafetyScaffoldRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSupreme CourtAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaehn v. Lahr Construction Corp.

Plaintiff sustained injuries after falling while repositioning a prefabricated interior staircase at a construction site. The staircase abruptly fell into the stairwell, causing the plaintiff to fall on top of it. Plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for these injuries, alleging liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against Lahr Construction Corp., doing business as LeCesse Construction Company, Winchester Construction Corp., Cloverwood Senior Living, Inc., and Rochester Friendly Senior Services. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants and third-party defendants appealed this amended order. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the worksite was 'elevated' as per Labor Law § 240 (1) and the defendants' failure to provide necessary safety devices established their liability for the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentFall from ElevationLabor LawStatutory LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorksite SafetyStaircase AccidentElevated Work
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendez v. HRH Construction Co.

The plaintiff, Robert Mendez, an electrician, sustained injuries after falling 20 feet through an unguarded hole on the 14th floor of a construction site. He moved for partial summary judgment against HRH Construction Company, Inc. under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding that the 14th floor of a construction site is an elevated work site and that an unguarded hole presents the same hazard as a roof-top hole. However, the court denied summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6) due to existing material issues of fact regarding reasonable protection and comparative negligence. All defendant cross-motions were denied.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Summary JudgmentElevated Work SiteUnguarded OpeningAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseComparative Negligence
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

405 Bedford Avenue Development Corp. v. New Metro Construction, Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal in a declaratory judgment action where 405 Bedford Avenue Corp. sought indemnification from New Metro Construction, Ltd., and Russo Construction, LLC, for an underlying personal injury action brought by Santos Hernandez, an employee of Russo. Hernandez was injured at a construction site owned by 405 Bedford, leading to a Labor Law claim. The Supreme Court denied New Metro and Russo's motion for summary judgment, which argued they had no contractual obligation to indemnify. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to New Metro and Russo. The reversal was based on the absence of a written indemnification agreement, a requirement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and the prior finding that Roth & Sons (New Metro's predecessor) was not liable in the underlying action. The case was remitted for a judgment declaring that New Metro and Russo are not obligated to indemnify 405 Bedford.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryWritten ContractConstruction AccidentLabor LawAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walls v. Sano-Rubin Construction Co.

A construction laborer was injured on a work site, leading to claims of negligence and Labor Law violations against the property owner, general contractor, and a subcontractor (AMC). AMC argued the injured worker's claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law, asserting that its employee, Marvin Easterling, was a 'special employee' of the injured worker's employer. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against AMC but later reinstated them. The appellate court affirmed the reinstatement of the vicarious liability claim against AMC, ruling that AMC failed to prove special employee status. Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment for contractual indemnification and defense to the property owner and general contractor against AMC, finding AMC contractually obligated for the acts of its employee.

construction accidentvicarious liabilityspecial employeeworkers' compensationindemnificationsummary judgmentLabor Lawnegligencesubcontractorgeneral contractor
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dick v. John M. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Alan F. Dick was injured when a temporary deck collapsed at a construction site in July 1984 while he was working for John M. Gates Construction Corporation, the general contractor. He and his wife sued Gates Construction, Harvest Homes (materials manufacturer), and Armand Córtese (property owner) for damages. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Gates Construction but granted summary judgment to Harvest Homes and Córtese. Gates Construction appealed the denial of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, holding that Gates Construction, as the general contractor, had a nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) to provide proper protection and that issues of fact regarding inadequate bracing precluded summary judgment in its favor.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Deck CollapseSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorNondelegable DutyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyConstruction Site Accident
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,145 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