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. 126064
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2019

Leggio v. State of New York

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to the State of New York and dismissing a claim filed by inmate Deborah Leggio. Leggio sought damages for injuries sustained after tripping over a tree stump while working at Albion Correctional Facility. The court held that the State's duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace does not extend to hazards inherent in the work being performed, especially when such hazards are open and obvious. As Leggio was tasked with cleaning branches of a felled tree and was aware of the stump, it was deemed an inherent and obvious hazard, negating the State's duty to warn. Consequently, the court found no basis for liability against the State.

Inmate InjuryUnsafe WorkplaceSummary JudgmentOpen and Obvious HazardDuty to WarnCorrectional FacilityAppellate DivisionWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityTree Stump
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wagner v. Wody

The plaintiff, Russell Wagner, a sanitation worker, was injured by a shard of glass while collecting garbage from the defendants' home. He sued Janice and Jerry Wody for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, ruling that the hazard was inherent to a sanitation worker's duties. Wagner appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that a small piece of glass constitutes ordinary garbage, and the associated hazard is inherent to the sanitation worker's job. A dissenting opinion, however, argued that the reasonableness of disposing of such glass and whether the hazard was "ordinary and obvious" should be a question for a jury, thereby raising a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSanitation Worker InjuryInherent RiskHazardous WasteBroken GlassHomeowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewNegligenceDuty of Care
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02919
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2020

Giannone v. City of New York

The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker for the City of New York, suffered a biceps tendon tear while lifting a heavy "sausage bag" with a coworker who lost their grip. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an action alleging common-law negligence against the City and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, determining the injury stemmed from a risk inherent in the plaintiff's employment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court concluded that the City had demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, establishing that the coworker was not negligent and the injury was an inherent hazard of the job.

Personal InjurySanitation WorkerCommon-law NegligenceLoss of ConsortiumSummary JudgmentInherent Hazard DoctrineEmployer DutyAppellate ReviewBiceps Tendon InjuryCoworker Negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Paider v. Park East Movers

An employer and its insurance carrier appealed a decision awarding a truck driver disability for pulmonary tuberculosis, found to be an occupational disease due to exposure to a co-worker in the truck cab. The court determined this was not an occupational hazard specific to truck driving, unlike situations where disease transmission occurs via instruments inherent to the job. Citing precedents like Harman and Buckley, the court reiterated that a co-worker, not the occupation itself, caused the disease. The decision differentiated the case from Mason and Hovancik, which involved transmission through job-specific tools like a telephone mouthpiece or a pipette. Consequently, the court reversed the board's decision and dismissed the claim, finding no "special hazard" attributable to a truck cab.

Occupational DiseaseTuberculosisTruck DriverCo-worker ExposureHazardInstrument of TransmissionWorkers' CompensationAppealDisease TransmissionEmployment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1989

Wolf v. 2539 Realty Associates

This case concerns a dispute between a landlord and tenant over who should bear the cost of asbestos abatement in a leased parking garage. The building's structural steel was coated with asbestos, which, due to governmental regulations (OSHA, NYC Health Department), was deemed a hazardous condition requiring removal or encapsulation. The landlord invoked lease provisions (repair clause and governmental compliance clause) to shift responsibility to the tenant. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the landlord is responsible for the abatement costs. The court reasoned that asbestos abatement is not a "repair" in the normal sense, as the material was functional for its original purpose, and the governmental compliance clause did not apply as the hazard was an inherent building characteristic rather than arising from the tenant's specific use or actions.

Asbestos AbatementTenant ResponsibilityLandlord ResponsibilityLease InterpretationStructural AlterationsGovernmental Compliance ClauseRepair ClauseHazardous MaterialsBuilding CodeNew York City Administrative Code
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2012

Bodtman v. Living Manor Love, Inc.

The appellate court reversed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which had denied summary judgment to defendants RM Farm Real Estate Inc. and Living Manor Love, Inc. The defendants' motions to dismiss claims under Labor Law §§ 240 and 200, and common-law negligence, were consequently granted. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed because the plaintiff's task of drilling holes for a temporary sign was not considered "altering" the building as defined by the statute. Furthermore, the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were also dismissed. This was due to the determination that the hazard, the inherently slippery and sloped metal roof, was readily apparent and inherent to the work, precluding defendant liability based on constructive notice.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law 240Labor Law 200NegligenceSafe Place to WorkConstruction SafetyAppellate DivisionDismissal of ClaimsInherent RiskNotice of Hazard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marin v. San Martin Restaurant, Inc.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker, and his wife initiated the action after the worker allegedly sustained injuries while lifting an overloaded garbage bag from the defendant's restaurant. They claimed the defendant created a dangerous condition and failed to provide a safe place to work. The appellate court determined that the hazard of lifting heavy garbage bags is inherent in a sanitation worker's duties and that an owner typically does not owe a duty to protect employees from hazards stemming from a contractor's methods without supervisory control. Given that the injured plaintiff opted to perform his task without assistance despite having resources, the court reversed the lower court's order, granted the defendant's motion, and dismissed the complaint.

Personal InjurySanitation WorkerSummary JudgmentAssumption of RiskWorkplace HazardOwner LiabilitySupervisory ControlAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityDuty to Warn
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02194
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2018

Rojas v. 1000 42nd St., LLC

Josefina Rojas, a cleaner, sued 1000 42nd Street, LLC, the owner of a multi-tenant residential building in Brooklyn, for personal injuries after allegedly slipping and falling on cardboard in the basement while performing her duties on September 21, 2014. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order and granted the defendant's motion. The Appellate Division held that the risk of slipping on cardboard was inherent in the plaintiff's work, which involved cleaning and removing garbage from the basement. The court affirmed that a landowner's duty to a worker is to provide a safe place to work, but not to guard against hazards inherent in the worker's specific tasks or those readily observable, thereby finding the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

premises liabilityslip and fallsummary judgmentlandowner dutysafe place to workinherent hazardcleaning workerappellate divisionreversalnegligence
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03497 [206 AD3d 620]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2022

Everett v. CMI Servs. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ron Everett, sustained personal injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated water and feces in an employee break room at his workplace. Defendants, including CMI Services Corp., Omni New York, LLC, and Plaza Residences, LLP, moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses such as inherent job hazard, open and obvious condition, and employer protection under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was not engaged in his cleaning duties at the time of the fall, the dangerous condition was not proven to be non-inherently dangerous despite being open and obvious (due to hidden feces), and the defendants failed to establish an alter ego or special employer relationship to invoke Workers' Compensation Law immunity. The court concluded that the defendants did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law NegligenceOpen and Obvious ConditionInherent Job HazardWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Alter Ego DoctrineSpecial EmployerAppellate Review
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 630 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