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
Nov 14, 2000

Almanzar v. Goval Realty Corp.

A plaintiff was injured while attempting to remove a bent retractable ladder from a fire escape, with the ladder falling on their arm. The defendant's motion for summary judgment, initially denied, concerned whether the accident fell under Labor Law § 240 (1) for gravity-related hazards. The Supreme Court reversed the denial, citing prior rulings in *Narducci v Manhasset Bay Assocs.* and *Capparelli v Zausmer Frisch Assocs.* The court found no significant elevation differential between the plaintiff and the falling object, concluding that the incident did not constitute a contemplated gravity-related hazard under Labor Law § 240 (1). Consequently, the plaintiff's claim under this section was dismissed.

Ladder accidentFire escapeGravity-related hazardElevation differentialSummary judgmentPersonal injuryWorkplace accidentStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewLabor Law application
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01096 [214 AD3d 666]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2023

Ortega v. Fourtrax Contr. Corp.

The plaintiff, Jose Santiago Orellana Ortega, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in October 2017 while working at a construction site. He was injured when a dolly transporting sheetrock tipped over and fell onto him. Ortega commenced an action against Fourtrax Contracting Corp. and 375 N. Broadway Associates, L.P., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the plaintiff's similar motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiff's injuries did not result from an elevation-related or gravity-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240 (1), as the statute applies to specific hazards and not all perils tangentially related to gravity's effects.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related RiskGravity-Related RiskFalling ObjectAppellate ReviewNassau CountySubcontractor Liability
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04415
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2023

Rivas v. Seward Park Hous. Corp.

William Rivas, a laborer, was injured when a trench wall collapsed while he was working at a depth of approximately 12 feet. He sued Seward Park Housing Corporation, Fred Smith Plumbing and Heating Company, and Onsite Construction Enterprises, asserting a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied Rivas's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim and granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the claim, reasoning that a trench cave-in was not an elevation-related hazard. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the trench cave-in presented an elevation-related hazard within the contemplation of Labor Law § 240 (1), especially in light of the Court of Appeals decisions in Runner and Wilinski. The court concluded that the defendants failed to provide adequate protection against a gravity-related accident and are liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)trench collapseelevation-related hazardsummary judgmentexcavation accidentconstruction safetygravity-related accidentshoringappellate reviewFirst Department
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2004

Suwareh v. State

Claimant was injured while attempting to hoist a bucket of hot tar to a roof using a rope. The bucket became stuck, and during efforts to free it, the claimant lost balance and the tar spilled, causing burns. Expert testimony indicated that the method used was unsafe and contrary to engineering principles, suggesting mechanical hoists or pumping as safer alternatives. The court found the defendant liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), rejecting the argument that the accident was not gravity-related. The court emphasized that both working at an elevated height and hoisting materials from one level to another present gravity-related hazards, regardless of whether a complete fall or direct impact from a falling object occurred.

workers' compensationgravity-related riskelevated workhoisting materialsconstruction accidentsafety violationlabor law liabilitypersonal injuryhot tarroof work
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05284 [231 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

Macaulay v. New Line Structures & Dev. LLC

The plaintiff, Matthew Macaulay, was injured when an unsecured heavy metal panel fell and struck his head while being removed from a louver. He filed a motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the accident was proximately caused by a failure to provide adequate safety devices against gravity-related hazards. The court determined that the heavy panel constituted an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the defendants failed to rebut the plaintiff's expert opinion.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentGravity-Related HazardElevation HazardSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentPanel FallAppellate ReviewPrima Facie CaseProximate Cause
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1997

Melo v. Consolidated Edison Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) to a construction accident. The plaintiff was injured when a steel plate, attached to a backhoe and being hoisted, became disengaged and fell, striking the plaintiff who was at ground level. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, a decision which was subsequently affirmed by the appellate court. The majority affirmed on the grounds that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies only to elevation-related hazards where the object falls from a significantly higher elevation than the work site, not merely due to gravity at ground level. The dissenting opinion argued that the use of an improvised hoist (backhoe and chain) and the elevation of even one end of the plate above the plaintiff's foot constituted an elevation-related hazard intended to be covered by the statute.

Labor Lawelevation differentialconstruction accidentfalling objectbackhoehoistslingstrict liabilitysummary judgmentappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennion v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

The dissenting judges, Doerr and Boehm, concur with the majority's decision to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. However, they respectfully dissent from the majority's determination that the plaintiff is entitled to recover under Labor Law § 240 (1). The dissent argues that the plaintiff's injury, which occurred when he fell on an elevated work surface while installing a collar on flexible duct work, does not fall within the "special hazards" contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1). They assert that these hazards are limited to specific gravity-related accidents like falling from a height or being struck by improperly secured objects, not merely any peril tangentially connected to gravity. Citing various precedents, the dissenting judges contend that the plaintiff's injury, a fall from a standing to a sitting position on the same work surface, does not meet the statutory criteria. Therefore, they would modify the order by denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Labour LawConstruction SafetyGravity-Related AccidentsElevated Work SurfaceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorkers' RightsStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Safety
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 1997

Vornfett v. Port Authority

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed an order from Bronx County which had denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff sustained a back injury while helping to move a steel beam, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court, citing precedents like Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co. and Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., clarified that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies specifically to gravity-related hazards such as falls from heights or being struck by improperly secured falling objects, not general construction site dangers. The appellate court found the facts indistinguishable from Rodriguez v Teitz Ctr. for Nursing Care, concluding that the plaintiff's injury resulted from ordinary construction risks rather than the special elevation-related hazards contemplated by the statute. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim predicated on Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240 (1)Gravity-related hazardsFalling objectsConstruction site injuryStatutory interpretationSummary judgmentAppellate reviewDismissal of complaintElevation differentialWorkplace safety
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Employment Relations Board v. Christ the King Regional High School

The New York State Employment Relations Board initiated a proceeding to enforce its order against Christ the King Regional High School, which mandated good-faith bargaining with the Lay Faculty Association and reinstatement of teachers. The School challenged this order on First Amendment grounds, specifically citing the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, arguing for an absolute exemption from the New York State Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division ruled in favor of the Board. The Court of Appeals affirmed these decisions, concluding that the Act, being a neutral and generally applicable regulatory measure, did not violate the First Amendment rights of the religious school in its labor relations with lay faculty. The court also upheld the reinstatement of teacher Gaglione, finding insufficient evidence of religious entanglement to preclude it.

First AmendmentFree Exercise ClauseEstablishment ClauseLabor LawCollective BargainingReligious SchoolsLay Faculty RightsEmployment DisputesJudicial ReviewAdministrative Order Enforcement
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 7,900 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