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

Aguilar v. Henry Marine Service, Inc.

The case involves plaintiff Marcos Aguilar, an employee of Tottenville Marina, Inc., who was injured while performing dry dock services on the tugboat Robert IV, owned by defendant Henry Marine Service, Inc. Aguilar fell 15-20 feet after tripping on a hose in an area where the vessel's bulwark had been removed, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on liability and the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the court reversed the denial of the plaintiffs' cross-motion, granting them summary judgment on liability. The appellate court concluded that the extensive overhaul work on the vessel constituted an 'alteration' under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that Aguilar, performing duties ancillary to this work, was entitled to its protection. The denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss was affirmed.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Construction Site AccidentElevated WorkSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityMaritime LawAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationDuty to Provide Safety Devices
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2010

Zhu Wei Shi v. Jun Lan Zhang

The plaintiff, hired to repair a damaged garage door at the defendants' three-family dwelling, suffered personal injuries after falling from an allegedly old, shaky, and unsteady ladder that twisted, bent, and collapsed. He initiated an action against the homeowners, including Bi Yu Zhang, asserting claims under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), but the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the motion. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the collapse of the ladder constituted a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact, leading to the granting of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability.

Ladder AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryHomeowner LiabilityDefective EquipmentProximate CauseAppellate DivisionNew York LawQueens County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 1997

Job v. 1133 Building Corp.

The plaintiff appealed the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) after sustaining injuries from a fall while dismantling a scaffold at a building owned by 1133 Building Corp. The defendant, 1133 Building Corp., and third-party defendants, Big Apple Wrecking and HRH Construction Corporation, opposed the motion. An affidavit from the plaintiff's foreman alleged that a safety belt was provided and the plaintiff was instructed to use it. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was a 'recalcitrant worker.' The appellate court affirmed this denial, citing conflicting evidence on the availability and use of safety devices.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerSafety DevicesAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction SiteThird-Party Action
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Snarski v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied an application by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group for reconsideration of a prior decision finding it liable as the workers' compensation carrier for a claimant's back injury. The claimant, an equipment operator, sustained the injury in October 2000 in Sullivan County, New York, while working for a New Jersey corporation. Initially, the carrier controverted the New York claim, asserting its policy only covered jobs in New Jersey. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found the policy vague and ruled the carrier liable. The carrier appealed the Board's denial of reconsideration, but not the underlying liability decision. The court affirmed the Board's denial, finding it was not arbitrary or capricious, and the carrier presented no new evidence to warrant a change.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionReconsideration DenialArbitrary and Capricious StandardAbuse of DiscretionPolicy InterpretationJurisdictionBack Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 1995

Granieri v. 500 Fifth Avenue Associates

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). The court denied defendant 500 Fifth Avenue Associates' cross-motion to amend their answer to include Workers' Compensation as an exclusive remedy and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The denial was based on evidence that control and supervision over the plaintiff was exercised by Newmark Real Estate, Inc., the defendant's managing agent, refuting the claim that the plaintiff was a special employee of the defendant. The court also affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on the owner for injuries due to a failure to provide proper equipment, and the plaintiff's possible culpable conduct regarding ladder placement would not defeat the claim. Additionally, the court found no error in refusing to reinstate the third affirmative defense given the two-year delay in serving the verification of the bill of particulars.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilitySpecial EmployeePremises LiabilityAffirmative DefenseCulpable ConductLadder AccidentAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff Michael Williams, a temporary laborer, was injured after falling from a ladder while working for Air Structures American Technologies, Inc. (ASAT) at a General Electric Company (GE) construction site. He and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. ASAT moved for summary judgment based on the special employee defense under Workers’ Compensation Law, and GE cross-moved for dismissal of a Labor Law claim. Plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on liability against GE under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted ASAT’s motion to amend its answer and the plaintiffs’ cross motion against GE. On appeal, the court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs against GE on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding sufficient evidence of the ladder's failure. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of ASAT’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiff was a special employee of ASAT, thereby making workers’ compensation his exclusive remedy against ASAT. Consequently, the complaint against ASAT was dismissed.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentConstruction Site SafetySpecial Employment DoctrineTemporary StaffingAppellate ReviewContractor Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cobo v. City of New York

The case involves a plaintiff who sued Sara Lighting Inc., the owner of premises at 140 Bowery, after allegedly tripping on an uneven sidewalk. The plaintiff claimed Sara Lighting Inc. was liable due to either special use of the sidewalk by its lessee, Lite Elite Company (who employed the plaintiff), or because Sara Lighting Inc. performed faulty repairs. The appellate court reversed the denial of summary judgment for Sara Lighting Inc., finding no evidence that the owner had a special use of the sidewalk or had undertaken the repairs. The court reiterated that an owner is not responsible for public sidewalk conditions unless they create the defect or use the sidewalk for a special purpose, a burden the plaintiff failed to meet. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint dismissed.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySidewalk MaintenanceOwner LiabilitySpecial Use DoctrineWorkers' Compensation BarAppellate ReviewComplaint DismissalNegligenceReal Property Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1998

Quispe v. Lemle & Wolff, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a lower court's denial of the defendants' motion for a new trial on liability. The central issue on appeal was the trial court's refusal to admit a hospital triage report into evidence. The report contained conflicting accounts of how the plaintiff sustained injuries, specifically whether she fell from a fire escape or jumped from a window to escape a fire, both from a height of eight feet. The court found the report inadmissible under both the business entry exception to the hearsay rule and as an admission against interest. This was due to the defendants' failure to prove that the plaintiff was the direct source of the recorded information, as the plaintiff spoke only Spanish and the nurse relied on unidentified EMS workers and a hospital translator. Furthermore, the court noted that the cause of the injury was not pertinent to the plaintiff's diagnosis or treatment, which further precluded its admission under the business records exception. The defendants' argument that the translator acted as the plaintiff's agent was also rejected as lacking factual support.

Hearsay RuleBusiness Entry ExceptionAdmission Against InterestHospital Triage ReportMedical Records AdmissibilityTranslation AccuracyInterpreter CompetencyCause of InjuryNew Trial MotionAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,692 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