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. 2014 NY Slip Op 05313 [119 AD3d 758]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Perla v. Daytree Custom Builders, Inc.

Milton Perla and his wife initiated an action for personal injuries against Daytree Custom Builders, Inc. after Mr. Perla fell from a roof during employment and received Workers' Compensation benefits. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and sought discovery sanctions or to strike the defendant's Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant was an alter ego of Mr. Perla's employer, which could limit remedies to Workers' Compensation. Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate willful discovery non-compliance and lacked a good faith affirmation for the discovery dispute. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ProcedureRooftop FallEmployer LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tillman v. Triou's Custom Homes, Inc.

Charles Tillman, a truck driver for Phelps Cement Products, Inc., sustained a fractured leg after falling from his flatbed truck while unloading cement blocks at a construction site. He sued Triou’s Custom Homes, Inc. (general contractor) and Zurich Masonry, Inc. (subcontractor) alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted Tillman partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, but this court reversed that decision, concluding that a flatbed truck is not an elevated work surface for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Triou, finding specific Industrial Code violations applicable, but upheld the dismissal of the § 241 (6) claim against Zurich as they were not Triou's agent.

Construction accidentFall from heightFlatbed truckLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial CodeGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor liabilityVicarious liabilityCommon-law indemnification
References
15
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08502
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Eddy v. John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant, John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc., and denying the plaintiff, Mark Eddy's, cross-motion for summary judgment. The case involved a construction worker who was injured after falling from a moving pickup truck while sitting on an unsecured cast iron grate. The court ruled that the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the fall from the truck's tailgate was considered a usual and ordinary danger of a construction site, not an extraordinary elevation hazard. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's decision to ride in a hazardous position on the tailgate, despite being warned, constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby precluding any liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6).

Labor LawWorkplace AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseElevation HazardPickup TruckUnsecured LoadAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
42
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02968
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Kosinski v. Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Zbigniew Kosinski and his wife, commenced an action against defendants Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc. (BMCC), Concordia General Contracting, Inc. (Concordia), and Lynn DeGregorio, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Kosinski after falling from a ladder during carpentry work. The lawsuit alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified this order, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) due to triable issues of fact concerning Kosinski's potential misuse of the ladder. Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against homeowner Lynn DeGregorio, invoking the homeowner's exemption as she did not direct or control the work. However, the denial of summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim against Concordia was affirmed, as Concordia failed to prove lack of supervisory authority.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorStatutory Duty
References
12
Case No. ADJ1083447 (LAO 0872246)
Regular
Mar 04, 2010

FRANKLIN GONZALEZ vs. ARGENT CUSTOM FURNITURE, DCS, UNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUND, CUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLC, CHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant, Franklin Gonzalez, and defendants including Argent Custom Furniture and the Uninsured Employer's Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order denying reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in denying the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDARGENT CUSTOM FURNITUREUNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUNDCUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLCCHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANYADJ1083447LAO 0872246DENYING RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitchell v. Route 21 Associates

The case involves an appeal by defendants Route 21 Associates and Max Finkelstein, Inc., from an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of Rapid Dismantling Corporation, was injured while removing asbestos from a warehouse owned by Route 21 Associates and leased by Max Finkelstein, Inc. Applying New Jersey law, the court found that a landowner is not liable for injuries to an independent contractor's employee resulting from the contracted work, provided there was no interference. The appellants demonstrated they exercised no supervision or control, and the respondents failed to present a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the order was reversed, summary judgment was granted, and the complaint and cross claims against the appellants were dismissed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLandowner LiabilityIndependent ContractorAsbestos RemovalNew Jersey LawPremises LiabilityDuty of CareNegligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1982

Claim of Weinstein v. 16 East 58th Street Corp.

The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant, a president of a retail liquor store corporation, sustained an accidental injury in the course of his employment and awarded benefits after he suffered head injuries from a fall near his home while en route to meet a customer. The employer and its carrier appealed this decision, arguing that employees are generally not within the scope of employment while traveling to and from work. However, exceptions exist for 'outside workers' or those on a 'special errand.' Despite the claimant's lack of recollection, testimony from his son and a customer suggested he was on a work-related appointment. The Board's factual finding that the claimant was acting within the course of his employment was affirmed due to substantial evidence supporting one of these exceptions.

Special Errand ExceptionOutside Worker ExceptionCommuting InjuryCourse of EmploymentAccidental InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAffirmed DecisionHead InjuriesCustomer AppointmentPresident of Corporation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rothenberg v. AAA Custom Lab

This case involves an appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Board's decisions which determined that a decedent's death arose out of and in the course of his employment. The decedent, a vice-president of AAA Custom Lab, was fatally shot near a diner after a reported business meeting. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the decisions. A dissenting judge argued for remittal, citing concerns about potential involvement in an illegal enterprise and insufficient exploration of the meeting's nature and its link to the homicide.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuryHomicideBusiness MeetingAppellate ReviewAffirmationDissenting OpinionCausal ConnectionCourse of EmploymentArising Out Of Employment
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06836
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Haven v. F & F Custom Constr. Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Troy Haven following a work-related accident that resulted in the amputation of multiple fingers on his right hand. The Workers' Compensation Board awarded benefits based on a 42% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right hand, calculated using the 2012 New York State Guidelines and accounting for "loading." Claimant sought a higher SLU, but the Board rejected his physician's opinion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the finding of a 42% SLU was consistent with medical evidence and supported by substantial evidence.

Schedule Loss of UseFinger AmputationPermanent ImpairmentMedical GuidelinesLoading (Workers' Compensation)Conflicting Medical OpinionsAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical EvidenceThird Department
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 351 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