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
Mar 27, 1998

Rice v. City of Cortland

Plaintiff was injured in June 1994 at a waste treatment plant in Cortland County, New York, while working for Structural Associates, Inc., the general contractor. The injury occurred during drilling operations performed by subcontractor Reith’s Hole Drilling Service, Inc., when a metal cable from a drill rig contacted overhead power lines, electrocuting the plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the City of Cortland, the plant owner, and Reith, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially made several rulings on summary judgment motions. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against Reith, finding that Reith, as a subcontractor, lacked the authority to control the injury-producing activity. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against the City, establishing the City's nondelegable duty as owner to comply with specific safety regulations like 12 NYCRR 23-1.13. Additionally, Reith's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common-law negligence claim was granted.

Labor LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyElectrocution InjuryConstruction AccidentNondelegable DutyIndustrial Code
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mendez v. HRH Construction Co.

The plaintiff, Robert Mendez, an electrician, sustained injuries after falling 20 feet through an unguarded hole on the 14th floor of a construction site. He moved for partial summary judgment against HRH Construction Company, Inc. under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), finding that the 14th floor of a construction site is an elevated work site and that an unguarded hole presents the same hazard as a roof-top hole. However, the court denied summary judgment under Labor Law § 241(6) due to existing material issues of fact regarding reasonable protection and comparative negligence. All defendant cross-motions were denied.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Summary JudgmentElevated Work SiteUnguarded OpeningAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseComparative Negligence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06733
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2020

Wenk v. Extell W. 57th St. LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiff Christopher Wenk partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against L. Martone & Sons Inc. The court determined that L. Martone was a "statutory agent" for Labor Law § 200 purposes, as it had been delegated authority to control the injury-producing activity. L. Martone was responsible for providing temporary protection against drain holes using limestone bags and ensuring their placement. The plaintiff established that L. Martone created the dangerous condition that resulted in his injuries, specifically by failing to warn workers of hidden holes when bags were removed.

Labor Law § 200Common-law negligencePartial Summary JudgmentStatutory AgentSupervisory ControlDangerous ConditionConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewInjury LiabilityWorker Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2011

Fraser v. Pace Plumbing Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying summary judgment to defendant Pace Plumbing Corp. The case involves a plaintiff injured when a scaffold slipped into an uncovered hole on a construction site. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Pace's potential liability as a statutory agent under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, despite contractual specifications suggesting that others were responsible for covering openings. Additionally, questions remain about Pace's common-law negligence, including whether it created the hole, removed coverings, or accurately reported site conditions, thus precluding summary judgment.

Scaffold AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentNegligenceConstruction Site SafetyStatutory AgentContract DisputeTriable Issues of FactPremises LiabilityNew York Law
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05589
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2023

Freyberg v. Adelphi Univ.

Plaintiff Douglas Freyberg sued Adelphi University for personal injuries, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) after tripping on plywood covering a hole. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim and parts of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Appellate Division modified the order, reinstating the Labor Law § 200 claim by denying summary judgment to the defendant, finding a failure to demonstrate lack of constructive notice. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicates, concluding the hole was too small and the plywood was an integral part of the construction, not a hazard in a passageway.

Personal injuryLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Premises liabilitySummary judgmentConstructive noticeIndustrial CodeAppellate reviewSafe place to workCarpentry work
References
8
Case No. Appeal Nos. 483-485
Regular Panel Decision

McCoo v. Lollytogs, Ltd.

The plaintiff, an employee of JWP Forest, was injured while performing electrical work in a building owned by SZS 33 Associates and leased by KMA, with the lease guaranteed by Lollytogs. He claimed to have stepped from a ladder into an unmarked hole. The action sought damages for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due to a clear issue of credibility regarding the existence of the alleged hole. Additionally, the court modified an order granting SZS 33 Associates "full" indemnification against Lollytogs to "contractual" indemnification, affirming it with this change.

Labor LawScaffold ActSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCredibility IssueWorkplace InjuryAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNew York Labor Law 240(1)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpio v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of L&L Painting Co., Inc., was injured while painting a ceiling at a U.S. Post Office construction site. He fell three feet into an uncovered hole in the floor while looking upwards. Plaintiff sued Tishman and Crow, the construction manager and general contractor, alleging violations including Labor Law § 240 (1). The trial court denied his motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the risk not elevation-related. The appellate court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's injury, resulting from a fall into a three-foot differential hole, constituted an elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240 (1), and reinstated the claim, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentElevation-Related HazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalUncovered HoleWorker SafetyNondelegable DutyGravity-Related RiskNew York Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2010

Scoran v. Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Jason N. Scoran, a Second Mate on the vessel Overseas New Orleans, suffered a compound leg fracture after falling into an unprotected swash hole in a fuel tank during cleaning operations in 2006. He filed a Jones Act claim alleging negligence and unseaworthiness, also seeking maintenance and cure. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss defendants' comparative and third-party negligence defenses, and a finding that the vessel was unseaworthy as a matter of law due to the unguarded hole and alleged violations of work-hour regulations. The court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment in all respects, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the comparative negligence defense and the unseaworthiness claim, and declining to apply the Pennsylvania Rule for causation.

Jones ActMaritime LawSeaworthinessComparative NegligenceSummary JudgmentShipboard AccidentFuel TankGuard RailsWorking HoursVessel Safety
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duke v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of Youst Painting, Inc., was injured on October 8, 1994, while painting a building owned by the defendant when he stepped into an uncovered access hole, twisting his right knee. He filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and 241-a. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendant's cross-motion. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the plaintiff's fall was not from an elevated worksite, thus Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable. Additionally, the court dismissed the Labor Law § 241-a cause of action, clarifying that the access hole was not a 'hatchway' as defined by the statute. The motion was denied, the cross-motion granted, and the first and third causes of action were dismissed.

Labor LawElevated WorksiteHatchway DefinitionSummary Judgment AppealPersonal InjuryConstruction SafetyFall AccidentAccess HoleAppellate ReversalWorkplace Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 83 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