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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01392 [214 AD3d 1332]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2023

Matter of Niagara Falls Captains & Lieutenants Assn. (City of Niagara Falls)

The Niagara Falls Captains and Lieutenants Association, as petitioner, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, which denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had previously denied the association's grievances against the City of Niagara Falls. The petitioner contended that the award should be vacated because it failed to meet the standards of finality and definiteness required by CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the lower court's order, emphasizing the extremely limited judicial review of arbitration awards. The court found that the award sufficiently defined the parties' rights and obligations regarding the alleged violation of their collective bargaining agreement or past practice concerning the filling of six vacancies by the City. Ultimately, the court concluded that the award was definite and final, resolving the submitted controversy without creating new ambiguities.

Arbitration AwardVacate AwardFinalityDefinitenessCPLR 7511Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievancesJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionPublic Sector Employment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. 310 West 38th, L.L.C.

This case concerns a laborer who suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The defendant-appellant sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1), contending it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, which would invoke the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. The motion court correctly rejected this argument, noting the lack of evidence demonstrating the employer's complete domination and control over the appellant's operations. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, confirming the plaintiff's protection under Labor Law § 240 (1) given his engagement in painting a building at the time of injury. Additionally, an appeal regarding a motion to renew and reargue was unanimously dismissed as it stemmed from a nonappealable order.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor Law ComplianceWorkers' Compensation BarAlter Ego DefenseAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyStatutory ProtectionNonappealable Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2000

Cruz v. Turner Construction Co.

Plaintiff, an electrician employed by non-party Remark Electric, was injured after falling from a ladder while installing wiring for a fire alarm in a new school. A lubricating compound used for pulling wires dripped onto the ladder, causing him to slip and fall. He sued under Labor Law § 240 (1). The motion court denied his request for partial summary judgment, questioning if the ladder was defective or if additional safety devices were needed. The appellate court reversed, finding no factual dispute and determining that the ladder was inadequate to protect against the foreseeable risk of falling from an elevation due to the lubricant, thus establishing liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Construction AccidentLadder FallSlippery SurfaceLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewForeseeable RiskSafety DevicesEmployer LiabilityElectrician Injury
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04452
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2018

Martin v. Niagara Falls Bridge Commn.

Plaintiff Eldred Jay Martin, an appellant, sustained injuries from a 25-30 foot fall while dismantling bridge scaffolding. He sued under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, Niagara Falls Bridge Commission and Liberty Maintenance, Inc., dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified this decision, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to triable issues of fact concerning the adequacy of safety devices provided. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, as he allegedly failed to use available safety equipment.

Scaffolding accidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyFall ProtectionWorkplace InjuryProximate CauseSafety DevicesEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. 163 AD3d 1496
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2018

Provens v. Ben-Fall Dev., LLC

Plaintiff John O. Provens sustained injuries after falling from a roof on which he had been working, allegedly due to detached "toe boards." Plaintiffs commenced an action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially granted defendant David Alen Sattora's cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against him. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously modified the order. The Appellate Division granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding the failure of the safety device was a violation as a matter of law. It also reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action against Sattora, asserting plaintiffs had standing and Sattora failed to establish prima facie entitlement to dismissal. Furthermore, the court granted Sattora's cross-motion to dismiss the Ben-Fall defendants' cross claims for common-law and contractual indemnification, concluding Sattora was not actively negligent for common-law indemnification and no valid contractual indemnification agreement existed for the relevant work.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyRoofing AccidentProximate CauseSafety Device FailureCross ClaimsContractual Indemnification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGill v. Qudsi

This case addresses liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a plaintiff who fell from a ladder while removing a second-story window. The court clarified that while the ladder itself might have been adequate for elevation, the defendant's failure to provide a separate safety device for handling and lowering the 40-50 pound window constituted a distinct elevation-related hazard. This omission was found to be a statutory violation and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident. The court further emphasized that claims of the plaintiff's contributory negligence or carelessness were irrelevant to establishing liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The lower court's order was affirmed.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Elevation HazardLadder FallWindow Removal AccidentSafety Device FailureProximate CauseContributory Negligence ImmaterialStatutory ViolationWorkplace InjuryConstruction Site Safety
References
23
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03319
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2023

Winston Salem RI LLC v. Ladder Capital Fin. LLC

This case concerns an appeal by Winston Salem RI LLC against Ladder Capital Finance LLC regarding the dismissal of breach of contract claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, reinstating claims related to the payment of forbearance fees and improper foreclosures, while affirming other aspects. The court clarified that a specific loan agreement section does not bar claims not challenging the reasonableness of Ladder's actions. Furthermore, it ruled that demand futility was adequately pleaded under Delaware law and that there is no heightened pleading requirement for breach of contract claims.

Breach of ContractDemand FutilityLoan AgreementsForbearance FeesImproper ForeclosuresAppellate ReviewDelaware LawPleading RequirementsContractual InterpretationMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. Goldman Sachs Headquarters, LLC

Plaintiff Royston Robinson, a sheet metal worker, was injured after falling five feet from an unsecured A-frame ladder, prompting an action to recover damages under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiffs appealed from an order denying their motion for summary judgment on liability. Initially, Robinson's deposition testimony asserting the ladder "kicked out" established a prima facie case. However, the defendants presented conflicting accident reports where Robinson previously attributed the fall to losing his footing or balance, without mentioning a ladder malfunction. This created a triable issue of fact regarding whether Robinson's own carelessness was the sole proximate cause of the fall, leading the Supreme Court to properly deny summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the order.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentProximate CauseTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewDeposition TestimonyAccident ReportContributory Negligence
References
15
Case No. 2026 NY Slip Op 00600, Index No. 153101/20, Appeal No. 5311, Case No. 2024-05946
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

Szczesiak v. Ery Tenant LLC

Plaintiff Mikolaj Szczesiak, an electrician, was injured after falling from a defective A-frame ladder while working on ceiling lights at a construction site. He moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), arguing the ladder was inadequate and defective, leading to a gravity-related fall. The Supreme Court denied the motion, citing a question of fact regarding plaintiff's sole proximate cause due to live wires. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed, finding the ladder's defects and movement constituted a failure to provide proper protection, establishing a Labor Law § 240(1) violation. The court determined plaintiff's actions were comparative negligence, not the sole proximate cause, and that alternative safety devices would have prevented the fall, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary Judgment MotionLadder Fall InjuryConstruction Site SafetyElectric Shock AccidentDefective Equipment LiabilityAppellate ReversalGravity-Related RiskComparative Negligence DoctrineProximate Cause Analysis
References
16
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07876 [189 AD3d 1384]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2020

Joseph v. 210 W. 18th, LLC

The plaintiff, Thadeus Joseph, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Joseph was injured after falling from an A-frame ladder while working in an apartment undergoing renovation. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied his motion, finding that the mere fact of falling from a ladder, without evidence of a defective or inadequately secured ladder, was insufficient to establish a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, agreeing that the plaintiff's testimony that the ladder shook, without evidence of it moving out of position or being an inadequate safety device, did not meet the burden for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryA-frame ladderFall from heightConstruction SiteWorker SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceLiabilityElevated Work Sites
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,459 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