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

Gentile v. Nulty

Police Officer Steven Gentile sued his employers, Kevin A. Nulty (Chief of Police) and the Town of Orangetown, alleging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York General Municipal Law § 207-c.l. Gentile claimed defendants continually denied him workers' compensation benefits in retaliation for previous legal actions to secure those benefits related to two work-related injuries: post-traumatic stress disorder and physical injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, arguing Gentile waived his rights by paying doctors directly and that they preserved their right to challenge liability. The court denied defendants' motions, finding Gentile had not waived his rights and defendants had not preserved their right to challenge liability, and stated an inclination to grant partial summary judgment to Gentile on the issue of liability.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPolice Officer RightsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c.lRetaliatory ActionsDue ProcessFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentWaiver of RightsSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Dismiss
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wescott v. Shear

Plaintiff Duane Wescott, a laborer, was injured after falling from a temporary stairway at a construction site due to a loose plank. He and his wife commenced an action against the project owners and general contractors, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court denied their motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the court determined that the temporary stairway was the functional equivalent of a ladder and fell within the 'other devices' designation of Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted the plaintiffs' motion, and awarded them partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Construction AccidentLabor LawScaffolding LawAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureWorker SafetyTemporary StructuresPersonal InjuryDuty to Furnish Protection
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zong Mou Zou v. Hai Ming Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, an owner and employee of Jian Li Construction, Inc., sustained personal injuries after falling 10 to 13 feet due to the collapse of sheet metal decking at a construction site. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Hai Ming Construction Corp., and site owners 62 Maspeth Avenue, LLC, and Danbro, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied. On appeal, the order was reversed on the law. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and that it was a proximate cause of his accident. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff's actions as the sole proximate cause or his status as a recalcitrant worker. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability was granted.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Court DecisionLiability DeterminationProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseWorkplace SafetyStatutory Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2006

Dowling v. McCloskey Community Services Corp.

Michael Dowling was injured when he fell from an unsecured extension ladder while painting, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. On appeal, the court found that the slipping ladder established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1), shifting the burden to the defendant. Since the defendant failed to refute the testimony or provide counter-evidence, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Ladder accidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentElevation-related riskPersonal InjurySafety device failurePrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyWorker Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morin v. Machnick Builders, Ltd.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by a subcontractor, was injured in a work-related accident when an extension ladder he was using slipped. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing that the ladder was not properly secured and constituted a statutory violation. Defendants, the general contractor and property owner, cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the court found that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) because the ladder was not properly placed and inadequate safety devices were provided, establishing a proximate cause for the injury. The recalcitrant worker defense was also rejected, as plaintiff used the only available safety device and merely failing to follow coworker's advice did not meet the criteria for recalcitrance. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Scaffolding LawLadder SafetyWorkplace AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseAppellate Review
References
12
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
Jul 13, 2001

A.I. Transport v. New York State Insurance Fund

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied a liability insurer’s application to stay an arbitration initiated by a workers’ compensation insurer. The workers’ compensation insurer sought to recover benefits paid to a bus passenger injured in an accident, where the bus was insured by the liability insurer. The court interpreted Insurance Law § 5105 (a) to allow a workers’ compensation provider, paying benefits in lieu of first party benefits, to recover amounts paid from the insurer of a liable party, even if one of the vehicles involved is a bus. It was determined that an exception for losses arising from the use of a motor vehicle (Insurance Law § 5103 [a] [1]) did not apply, as the respondent was a workers’ compensation insurer and not an automobile insurer. Consequently, the arbitration was allowed to proceed, and the petition to stay it was dismissed and unanimously affirmed.

Arbitration DisputeInsurance Law InterpretationNo-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation SubrogationBus AccidentLiability CoverageStatutory ConstructionAppellate ReviewInsurer Recovery
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2014

Myiow v. City of New York

The plaintiff, an employee of Brooklyn Welding Corp., was injured at Harlem Hospital when he fell 13-14 feet from a flatbed truck while preparing steel beams for hoisting, after a piece of dunnage broke. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing a lack of proper safety devices. The defendants cross-moved, contending the accident was not an elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendants' cross-motion, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court found that a fall from 13-14 feet constitutes an elevation-related risk and that the provision of an inadequate safety harness established liability.

elevation-related risksummary judgmentliabilityinadequate safety devicesconstruction accidentfall from heightflatbed truckdunnageLabor Law § 240 (1)appellate division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Greey v. Yaphank Fire Department

Claimant, a volunteer firefighter, sustained work-related injuries in December 2005. Her workers' compensation claim was established but marked for no further action as she incurred no compensable lost time. In September 2013, the employer requested to transfer medical liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing that more than seven years had passed since the injury and three years since the last payment of compensation. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this request, finding the case improperly reopened and lacking proof of current liability. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that in the absence of proof of further medical or indemnity benefits payable, and with the claimant's affidavit attesting to no claims for reduced earnings, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the transfer of liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesLiability TransferVolunteer FirefighterMedical LiabilityIndemnity BenefitsSeven Year RuleThree Year RuleAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 18,931 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