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

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 04, 2004

Cappiello v. Johnson

The Town of Orangetown appealed a Supreme Court order denying its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The plaintiffs alleged that the Town created a hazardous icy condition by plowing snow onto the sides of the road, which then melted and refroze across the road, causing a vehicle to skid and hit the plaintiffs' vehicle. The Town argued that prior written notice of icy conditions was required under Town Law § 65-a. However, the court found that prior written notice is not required when a municipality is alleged to have created the hazardous condition. The Supreme Court properly denied the Town's motion for summary judgment as the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact regarding the Town's creation of the dangerous condition. The order was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityIcy ConditionsSnow PlowingHazardous ConditionPrior Written NoticeRoad MaintenanceVehicle SkidAppellate Division
References
2
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

New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller

Plaintiffs, representing residents of the Willowbrook State School for the Mentally Retarded, sought judicial intervention to improve inhumane living conditions. The court found severe overcrowding, chronic understaffing of medical and care personnel, and inadequate facilities, leading to a hazardous environment. While denying a broad constitutional 'right to treatment,' the court affirmed the residents' 'right to protection from harm.' Consequently, the court issued a preliminary injunction mandating specific actions, including immediate hiring of additional ward attendants, nurses, physical therapists, and physicians, repair of inoperable toilets, prohibition of seclusion, and securing a contract with an accredited hospital for acute medical services. The court also reserved the power to adjust salaries to attract necessary staff.

Mentally Retarded RightsInstitutional CareProtection From HarmPreliminary InjunctionStaffing ShortagesFacility ConditionsCivil Rights LitigationDue Process ConcernsEighth AmendmentState Funding
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amendola v. City of New York

The case involves a plaintiff who allegedly slipped and fell on grease on a trailer step within an enclosed sanitation garage. The defendant, City of New York, moved for summary judgment, claiming no creation of or notice of the hazardous condition. The Supreme Court initially granted this motion. However, the appellate court reversed, concluding that the defendant failed to meet its prima facie burden by not establishing the origin of the grease or when the area was last cleaned, thereby failing to negate constructive notice. Additionally, the City did not eliminate all factual issues regarding actual notice of a recurring hazardous condition.

Slip and fallGreaseHazardous conditionSummary judgmentConstructive noticeActual noticePrima facie burdenAppellate reviewPremises liabilityMunicipal liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wheeler v. Grande'Vie Senior Living Community

Plaintiff John A. Wheeler suffered injuries after slipping on ice and falling in the parking lot of defendant's assisted living facility while helping his mother-in-law move during a snowstorm. The area where he fell had been shoveled, but ice was present beneath a thin layer of snow. Wheeler and his wife initiated a personal injury action, which the Supreme Court dismissed by granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing the "storm in progress" doctrine. On appeal, the higher court affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant's snow removal efforts created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards of the storm. Furthermore, the court found no duty to warn of icy conditions during an ongoing storm under the specific circumstances, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilityStorm in Progress DoctrineSummary JudgmentLandowner DutySnow RemovalIceNegligenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 01555
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2016

Lois v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC

Plaintiff Jorge Lois, an employee of J&R Glassworks, Inc., sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC and Bass Associates, LLC, after slipping and falling on a plastic tarp and broken concrete at a construction site. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss Lois's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and their contractual indemnification claim against J&R. The court denied both motions, finding issues of fact regarding Bass Associates' role as an owner, the defendants' responsibility for the hazardous condition, and the applicability of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2). Additionally, J&R failed to demonstrate an absence of factual issues concerning its notice of the hazardous condition, thereby upholding the contractual indemnification claim against it.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSlip and FallThird-Party ActionOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityHazardous Condition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2011

Velasquez v. 795 Columbus LLC

The plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping on mud, rocks, and water at a construction site due to rain and a water main break. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Labor Law § 200 claims against defendant Tishman Construction and denied the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) (slipping hazards) was an applicable predicate for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the muddy condition constituted a 'foreign substance' on the 'floor'. The court found that Tishman Construction had notice of the hazardous condition and failed to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie showing of negligence. The claim for lost wages was appropriately deferred to trial as an issue of damages.

Construction AccidentSlip and FallLabor Law ComplianceHazardous Work ConditionsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewVicarious Employer LiabilityNotice of HazardConstruction SafetyNew York Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shandraw v. Tops Markets, Inc.

Plaintiff, an ironworker, initiated an action against Tops Markets, Inc. and Camridge Construction, Ltd. for personal injuries sustained on a construction project, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) due to a hazardous ground condition. The Supreme Court partially dismissed these claims, notably the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action and parts of the remaining claims. On appeal, the court further modified the order, ruling that Labor Law § 241 (6) based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) was inapplicable as the incident area was not a designated floor or platform. It also concluded that the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action should have been entirely dismissed, asserting that the hazardous condition was readily observable by the plaintiff, thus negating the defendants' duty to protect against it.

Ironworker injuryConstruction site accidentPremises liabilitySummary judgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Dangerous conditionReadily observable hazardAppellate reviewPersonal injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrington v. Fernet

Mark Harrington, an employee of M&A Construction, sustained an injury in September 2006 while working on a residential development for Charlew Construction Company, Inc., discharging a nail into his right leg with a pneumatic framing gun. Harrington and his spouse subsequently sued Charlew, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. Charlew's motion for summary judgment was partially granted, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but denied concerning Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, with the indemnification claim deemed premature. The core dispute revolves around whether a hazardous condition, specifically an unbackfilled foundation creating a muddy slope, was present at the worksite, which Harrington claimed caused his accident. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to a factual dispute regarding the hazardous condition, a decision affirmed by the appellate court.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryNail Gun InjuryLabor Law ViolationsSafe Place to WorkHazardous ConditionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommon-Law NegligenceContribution
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,111 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