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

Boyd v. Schiavone Construction Co.

Plaintiff Robert Boyd, a drill operating engineer, was severely injured on a subway construction site when a drill rig he was operating tipped over, pinning him to the tracks. The incident occurred after safety chains securing the rig were removed, a procedure whose necessity and execution were disputed. Boyd filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the contractors, Schiavone Construction Co. and Granite Halmar Construction Company. The Supreme Court initially denied Boyd's motion for summary judgment on liability, citing a potential 'sole proximate cause' defense. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, emphasizing that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) and found insufficient evidence to establish Boyd as the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby granting his motion for summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate DivisionDrill Rig AccidentConstruction SafetyGravity-Related AccidentWorker InjuryFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prendeville v. United States

This case involves a plaintiff suing the United States of America under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained by John Prendeville at a VA Hospital, leading to paralysis. The defendants moved to dismiss the first cause of action, arguing that the plaintiff's complaint was untimely under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations, claiming the cause of action accrued shortly after Prendeville's injury in September 1981. The court examined the accrual of a claim under the FTCA, which requires the plaintiff to discover both the injury and its cause. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a factual dispute regarding when the plaintiff or Prendeville's family became aware of the alleged cause of the injury, potentially due to misleading statements from medical personnel.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatute of LimitationsMedical MalpracticeAccrual of ClaimSummary Judgment MotionSpinal Cord InjuryVA Hospital NegligenceWrongful Death ClaimIntubation ComplicationsDiscovery Rule
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber

The dissenting opinion, authored by Staley, Jr., J., argues against the majority's conclusion that contributory negligence was not a defense to a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) at the time of the accident. The dissent contends that subdivision 6 imposes a duty of reasonable care, not absolute liability, and therefore, contributory negligence should be a valid defense. It reviews legislative history and prior case law, emphasizing that the pre-1969 statute, identical in terms of liability definition to present subdivision 6, allowed contributory negligence as a defense. The dissent also clarifies a previous gratuitous statement by the court regarding contributory negligence in Frattura v Cozzolino Constr. Corp. The final judgment was modified, reversing the dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) and the third-party complaint, ordering a new trial on those matters, and affirming the judgment as modified.

Contributory NegligenceLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityDuty of Reasonable CareConstruction SafetyExcavation WorkDemolition WorkSafe Place to WorkStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. 62-25 30th Avenue Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, involved in construction work, sustained injuries while removing heavy metal racks, either by falling from an elevated worksite or being struck by a falling piece of scaffolding. A jury initially found a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) but no proximate cause for the plaintiff's injuries. The appellate court found this proximate cause determination irrational, asserting that under both presented scenarios (falling worker or falling object), Labor Law § 240 (1) applied, and contributory negligence is not a defense. Consequently, the judgment favoring the defendants was reversed, the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action was reinstated, and the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability was granted, remitting the case for a trial on damages.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Elevated Worksite HazardFalling Object InjuryFalling Worker InjuryProximate CauseJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ReversalMotion for Judgment as Matter of Law
References
7
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 50543(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2004

Moniuszko v. Chatham Green, Inc.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, reiterating that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for breaches causing worker injuries. The court found that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of liability, and the defendant failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding a statutory violation or the worker's sole proximate cause. It was determined that the accident was caused by a broken hook on a scaffold, not by the plaintiff's temporary removal of a safety harness, and contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityContributory NegligenceAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1987

Pesce v. City of New York

Paolo Pesce, an employee of Arthur Tickle Engineer Works, Inc., and his wife sued the City of New York and Arthur Tickle for personal injuries Pesce sustained when he fell from a hi-lo vehicle after it hit a pothole on a City street. A jury initially found the City 10% at fault and Arthur Tickle 90% at fault, with Pesce not contributorily negligent. On appeal, the defendants challenged the finding of proximate cause and argued for Pesce's contributory negligence. The appellate court found the trial court's jury instruction on contributory negligence, particularly regarding a subordinate obeying a dangerous direction from a superior, was erroneous and confusing, as it improperly suggested contributory negligence might not be found as a matter of law. Due to this confusing charge, the order was reversed, and a new trial was ordered on the issue of liability.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceProximate CauseMunicipal LiabilityHighway DefectPothole AccidentEmployer LiabilityJury Charge ErrorNew Trial
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers

This case addresses a motion by the defendant, Seafarers International Union, to dismiss the third cause of action in a complaint. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants conspired to induce its employees to violate a collective bargaining agreement and engage in a secondary boycott, thereby forcing the plaintiff to cease doing business with another entity. The core legal question is whether a conspiracy to commit acts prohibited by Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 187), which targets secondary boycotts, is actionable. The court reviewed previous Supreme Court decisions affirming the broad scope of Section 303. Ultimately, the court concluded that the third cause of action adequately states a claim for relief under Section 303. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottConspiracyMotion to DismissLabor Management Relations ActCollective BargainingFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationUnion Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spinella v. Town of Paris Zoning Board of Appeals

The respondents moved to dismiss the petition alleging petitioners failed to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days, deeming it abandoned. Petitioners' counsel, a qualified individual with a visual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, argued that his impairment constituted 'good cause' for the delay. He sought reasonable accommodation, citing past accommodations for the bar exam and law school, as well as an increased workload due to a lost secretary. The court found that the counsel's visual impairment indeed served as good cause for noncompliance with the established time limits. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the proposed judgment was signed, recognizing the extension of time as a reasonable accommodation.

Americans with Disabilities ActADADisability AccommodationJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTime LimitsGood CauseVisual ImpairmentAttorney DisabilityCourt Procedure
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,386 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