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

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schultz v. Hi-Tech Construction & Management Services, Inc.

This legal text discusses the application of Labor Law § 200, which codifies the common-law duty of landowners and general contractors to provide a safe work environment. The statute's liability is governed by common-law negligence principles, and it extends to cases involving ladders. The text categorizes Labor Law § 200 cases into those stemming from dangerous premises conditions and those from the manner of work performance. When injuries arise from a dangerous condition, a general contractor may be liable if they controlled the worksite and had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding the cause of a ladder slip and fall, and whether the defendants had control and notice of the dangerous condition.

Labor Law § 200Workplace SafetyCommon-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionsSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactGeneral Contractor LiabilityLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityNotice of Dangerous Condition
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Zanki v. Cahill

Plaintiff sought damages for psychological injuries after slipping and falling down a stairwell. She claimed a recurrent dangerous condition of spilled food and drink, but admitted not seeing what caused her to slip, only noticing her sleeve was wet post-fall. The lower court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was affirmed on appeal. The majority found insufficient evidence that the alleged condition existed at the time of the fall or proximately caused it, relying on speculation. The dissenting opinion argued that the wet sleeve, coupled with evidence of frequent spillages and defendant's awareness, provided enough circumstantial evidence to raise a factual issue regarding causation and constructive notice of a recurring dangerous condition.

slip and fallpersonal injurysummary judgmentrecurring dangerous conditionproximate causecircumstantial evidencepremises liabilitynoticewet floorstairwell accident
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00572 [191 AD3d 692]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2021

Penny v. County of Suffolk

In a personal injury action, plaintiff Harry Penny, a track coach, tripped and fell over starting blocks during a track meet. Defendants New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., and Section XI moved for summary judgment, arguing they neither controlled the premises nor created the dangerous condition, and that plaintiff assumed the risk. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that evidence raised triable issues of fact regarding the defendants' responsibility for the equipment and the creation of the hazardous condition. Furthermore, the Appellate Division concluded that the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff assumed the risk or that the starting blocks constituted an open and obvious, non-inherently dangerous condition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionTrip and FallSports EventAssumption of RiskContributionIndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waiters v. Northern Trust Co.

Plaintiff, a cleaning worker for Collins Building Services, Inc. (CBS), was injured after slipping on a wet bathroom floor in a building managed by defendant Tower Realty. He commenced an action for personal injuries against Tower, the building owner, and the 10th floor occupant, alleging negligence for a slippery floor and failure to install a non-skid surface. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not create or have notice of the dangerous condition, and that the plaintiff was hired to remedy such conditions. The Supreme Court initially denied the motions, but the Appellate Court reversed, holding that defendants met their burden of demonstrating a lack of actual or constructive notice. The court also affirmed the principle that a maintenance worker cannot claim injury from a dangerous condition they were hired to remedy, thereby granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing the complaint.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligenceSlippery FloorCleaning Worker InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyActual NoticeConstructive NoticeHearsay Evidence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1999

Rosen v. New York Zoological Society

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision. The case involved a plaintiff, a volunteer worker, who was injured while navigating a steep, muddy riverbank. The plaintiff argued that the injury resulted from a latent or concealed condition, breaching the defendant's duty. However, the appellate court found that such natural terrain with foreseeable uneven spots does not engender a duty on the part of the defendant. It held that a landowner owes no duty to warn of or prevent danger from plainly and obviously dangerous natural conditions, thereby granting the defendant's motion and dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLandowner DutyNatural ConditionsObvious DangerVolunteer InjuryRiverbank IncidentAppellate ReversalDismissal of ComplaintBronx County
References
7
Case No. 612067/18
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Viana v. All Is. Recycle & Rubbish Removal

This case concerns a wrongful death action brought by Ruth Viana against Bellco Enterprises, Inc., among others, following an accident where her decedent was killed while working on Bellco's premises. The plaintiff alleged Bellco's negligence. Bellco moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked authority to supervise the work and that no dangerous premises condition existed for which it had created or had notice. The Supreme Court granted Bellco's motion, dismissing the complaint against it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that Bellco established its prima facie case regarding lack of supervision and absence of a dangerous condition, which the plaintiff failed to rebut with a triable issue of fact.

Wrongful DeathNegligencePremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewControl of WorkDangerous ConditionActual NoticeConstructive Notice
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kenyon v. Oneonta City School District

Plaintiff was injured at defendant's high school when a large, heavy door, which had been propped unsecured against a wall by a maintenance worker, fell on her while she was searching for a bathroom. She subsequently commenced a negligence action, alleging the creation of a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and simultaneously denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the unsecured door created a dangerous condition as a matter of law. The court also found that defendant's arguments regarding the door's stability, its open and obvious nature, or any comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff were either unpersuasive or unpreserved for appellate review.

NegligencePremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSchool LiabilityPersonal InjuryFalling ObjectLiabilityComparative Fault
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2015

Nicholas v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

This memorandum decision concerns appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County. The order partially granted summary judgment to WalMart Stores, Inc. regarding a Labor Law § 200 claim and common law negligence, while denying it to MLB Contractors, Inc. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court clarified that a general contractor or owner may be liable under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 if they control the work site and have actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition causing worker injuries. It concluded that MLB Contractors, Inc. failed to meet its burden in showing it lacked control over the work site or notice of the dangerous condition.

Labour LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorksite SafetyControl of WorksiteNotice of ConditionCommon LawLiability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,983 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