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

Cassidy v. Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc.

A laborer, referred to as the plaintiff, sustained neck and back injuries after falling from a temporary loading dock when its safety railing detached. The incident occurred at a construction site owned by Midtown West A.L.L.C. and general contracted by Rockrose GC MWA L.L.C., with the loading dock installed by Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. The motion court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) claims, holding the owner and general contractor liable for the failure of the elevated platform designed to protect from gravity-related hazards. However, the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law § 241 (6), Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence were dismissed due to the loading dock being classified as a platform, not a scaffold, and a lack of evidence regarding notice of an improperly reattached rail. The appellate court affirmed these rulings, also declining to consider a new argument raised by the defendants on appeal.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentElevated PlatformSafety RailGravity-Related HazardIndustrial Code § 23-1.22(c)(2)NegligenceSite Safety Expert
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Gallo v. LiMandri

This case concerns the appeal of a decision to annul the revocation of a petitioner's hoist machine operator (HMO) license. The respondent Commissioner had revoked the license based on the petitioner's prior mail fraud conviction, stemming from an alleged scheme involving preferential union job assignments. The Supreme Court annulled the revocation and ordered a one-year suspension, a decision unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The court found the Commissioner's revocation excessive given the specific circumstances of the petitioner's conviction, noting a lack of evidence for bribes or kickbacks and the questionable legal theory behind the mail fraud charge after the Skilling v United States decision. The court distinguished the petitioner's culpability from other cases involving more severe offenses like extortion.

License RevocationMail FraudHoist Machine OperatorMoral CharacterAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUnion Job AssignmentsOrganized CrimeAdministrative DiscretionPenalty Excessive
References
7
Case No. Index No. 152852/19 595213/20 595187/21, Appeal No. 5738, Case No. 2024-06486
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

Siguencia v. Hudson Cos. Inc.

Juan Siguencia, a plaintiff, successfully moved for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim against owner/GC, Athena Housing Associates, LLC and Bruno Frustaci Contracting Inc. However, the motion by third-party defendants New York Hoist, LLC and NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC (collectively Hoist/Crane) for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims against them was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's order, granting Hoist/Crane's motion for summary judgment and dismissing all claims and cross-claims against them, while otherwise affirming the initial order. The appellate court found no evidence to establish Hoist/Crane's responsibility for the doorframes' storage or their negligence in the incident.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectPremises LiabilityThird-Party ClaimsAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00750 [224 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2024

Weidtman v. Tremont Renaissance Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Weidtman, an employee of NYC Crane, was injured at a construction site when struck by a hoisted plank, causing him to fall into a basement. A prior order had granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against various defendants due to the lack of safety devices. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, dismissing common-law negligence claims against Tremont and Mastermind, and granting conditional summary judgment on contractual indemnification claims to Tremont/Joy Defendants against Urban, and to Urban against Newburgh and NYC Crane. Furthermore, the court granted Tremont/Joy Defendants' claim for breach of contractual obligation to procure insurance against Newburgh and NYC Crane. The decision otherwise affirmed portions of the prior order and identified remaining issues of fact for other claims.

Construction Site AccidentLabor Law LiabilityContractual IndemnityCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentBreach of Insurance ObligationThird-Party LitigationWorkplace SafetyAppellate Division RulingWorker Fall Injury
References
15
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09604
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Maggio v. 24 West 57 PFF, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Maggio, a drywall installer, was injured after falling from a scaffold staircase at a premises owned by 24 West 57 APF, LLC and leased by Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY). The scaffold, constructed by Atlantic Hoist & Scaffolding, LLC, had a modified staircase with plywood covering some steps, lacking anti-slip protection and having an irregular rise. Plaintiff attributed his fall to these conditions and the presence of construction debris. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from defendants 24 West and ATNY, citing outstanding discovery, and later denied renewed motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division found 24 West and ATNY justified in bringing the second motion but denied their request for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual questions regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The court also denied plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting ATNY conditional contractual indemnification against R&R, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
12
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2003

Kollbeck v. 417 FS Realty LLC

This case involves a plaintiff employee who sustained a back injury while attempting to prevent a mechanical chain block hoist from falling down a 12-story stairwell. The hoist, along with its chain, was concededly too heavy for one worker to lift, and no safety device was provided for its removal. The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, ruling that a finder of fact could determine the hoist was an object that fell due to the absence of a specified safety device. The injury, even without direct impact, was deemed a foreseeable consequence of the defendants' failure to provide proper protective devices, thereby allowing the claim to proceed.

Labor Law § 240(1)falling objectsafety devicesummary judgmentworker injuryback injuryforeseeable consequenceappellate reviewconstruction site safetyworkplace accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1985

Espinosa v. A & S Welding & Boiler Repair, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff, an employee of Atlas Welding & Boiler Repair, Inc., who was injured while loading a boiler section onto a truck owned by A & S Welding & Boiler Repair, Inc. using a chain hoist. The plaintiff alleged the chain hoist jammed, causing the boiler section to fall on his foot. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, found A & S and Atlas 50% liable each. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove a defect or notice thereof and that the expert's testimony was based on speculation and a too-remote inspection. The appellate court also determined that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable as A & S did not have exclusive control of the hoist, leading to the dismissal of both the complaint and the third-party complaint.

Hoist accidentProduct liabilityExpert testimony admissibilityRes ipsa loquiturExclusive controlPrima facie caseReversed judgmentWorker injuryLiabilityCausation
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07031 [212 AD3d 107]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2022

Ladd v. Thor 680 Madison Ave LLC

Plaintiff Kenneth Ladd was injured in 2013 when an emergency hatch door in a construction hoist closed on his head while he was working at 680 Madison Avenue, Manhattan. He initiated an action against the property owners and the hoist installer, alleging violations under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted Ladd partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that he was exposed to an elevation-related risk due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed his other claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the hoist was an inadequate safety device as its emergency hatch door lacked a mechanism to prevent sudden closure, leading to an elevation-related injury.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related RiskSafety Device FailureHoist Emergency HatchSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryContributory NegligenceGravity-Related Injury
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 133 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