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. 2023 NY Slip Op 05661 [221 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Keilitz v. Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc.

Christopher Keilitz, an electrician working for Hellman Electric Corp., was injured when a vacuum fell into a manhole and struck him during the installation of fiber optic cables. Keilitz sued Light Tower Fiber New York, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Empire City Subway (ECS) under New York Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied Keilitz's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and dismissed claims against the defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Keilitz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against ECS and Light Tower. The court determined that Keilitz's work constituted an 'altering' activity under the statute and that the falling vacuum presented an elevation-related risk, rendering other related claims moot.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskManhole AccidentFiber Optic InstallationAlteration WorkAppellate DivisionThird-Party ClaimContractual Indemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1988

Miller v. Long Island Lighting Co.

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 17, 1988, which affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Long Island Lighting Co. The case stemmed from a personal injury claim by Thomas Miller, who allegedly fell from a ladder at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on March 24, 1980. Miller's testimony was inconsistent, and the plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), which mandates proper safety devices for workers. The trial court's refusal to direct judgment in the plaintiffs' favor and its denial of a motion to set aside the verdict were upheld, as the resolution of credibility and accuracy issues is within the jury's province, and the decision was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Absolute LiabilityProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCredibilitySuffolk County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Lighting Co. v. County of Suffolk, NY

The plaintiff, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), sued the County of Suffolk, alleging inverse condemnation of its Shoreham nuclear power plant and breach of contract, seeking a $4 billion judgment. LILCO claimed the County obstructed its efforts to license the plant by refusing to participate in emergency planning. The defendants moved to dismiss. The court found LILCO's inverse condemnation claim not ripe for judicial review, as it depended on uncertain future events like the NRC denying a license. Consequently, the federal constitutional claim was dismissed. The related state law breach of contract claim was also dismissed due to the dismissal of the federal claim.

Inverse CondemnationBreach of ContractRipeness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentFederal JurisdictionNuclear Power PlantEmergency PlanningShoreham Nuclear Power StationSuffolk CountyNRC Licensing
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1996

In Re the Arbitration Between Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. & Central Power & Light Co.

This case concerns a petition by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) to compel Central Power and Light (CPL) to arbitrate a dispute arising from an insurance policy and to stay CPL's ongoing state court action in Texas. NEIL, a Bermuda corporation, had issued an extra expense policy to CPL, a Texas corporation, which included a broad arbitration clause mandating arbitration in New York City for most disputes. Despite this, CPL filed a breach of contract suit in a Texas state court after NEIL denied its claim for losses. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected CPL's arguments for abstention and found that the arbitration clause was enforceable. Consequently, the court granted NEIL's petition, compelling arbitration and enjoining CPL from continuing its Texas state court proceedings.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract DisputeInsurance PolicyStay of ProceedingsJurisdictionAbstention DoctrineChoice of LawEnforceabilityFraud in the Inducement
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2001

Adair v. Bestek Lighting & Staging Corp.

Plaintiff, a stagehand, was injured when a man-lift fell while she was focusing overhead lights above a temporary stage. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied her motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. On appeal, the order was modified to grant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and otherwise affirmed. The court held that the activity of focusing already-installed lights did not constitute "erection" or "altering" of a structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1), explicitly rejecting the "integral and necessary" test for expanding the statute's scope. The dissenting justices argued that the light-focusing was a required step in completing the construction of the temporary stage and therefore fell within the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1), distinguishing it from routine maintenance or minor alterations.

Stagehand InjuryMan-lift AccidentLabor LawStatutory InterpretationConstruction Site SafetySummary Judgment DismissalAppellate ReviewIntegral and Necessary DoctrineErection ActivitiesAltering Activities
References
12
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08300 [145 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2016

Netzahuall v. All Will LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding the denial of defendant Lime Light's cross-motion to dismiss common-law indemnification claims brought by defendant All Will LLC. The plaintiff, Gabriel Netzahuall, an employee of Lime Light, sustained injuries but not a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Although the Workers' Compensation Board previously determined Lime Light to be the plaintiff's employer, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that All Will, the premises owner, was not collaterally estopped from challenging this determination. The court reasoned that All Will was not a party to the prior Workers' Compensation proceeding and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's employer.

indemnificationcollateral estoppelWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipgrave injurypremises liabilityappellate practicestatutory interpretationprivity of partieslitigation opportunity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Valley Stream v. State of New York Public Service Commission

The Village of Valley Stream initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Public Service Commission's (PSC) determination upholding Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) decision to terminate street lighting service. LILCO, citing abnormal expenditures due to cable failure and wear and tear, refused to replace the system and ceased service. The PSC interpreted LILCO's tariff to allow termination under such circumstances, a decision the court found rational. The court balanced LILCO's significant economic loss against minimal public harm, considering viable alternatives for the village and new legal requirements for public bids and prevailing wages, ultimately confirming the PSC's determination and dismissing the village's petition.

Street Lighting ServiceUtility TerminationPublic Service Commission ReviewTariff InterpretationAbnormal ExpenditureEconomic LossPublic InterestCPLR Article 78Utility RegulationCable Failure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1999

Light v. Antedeminico

Roger Light, a maintenance worker for Pawling Corp., initiated this action against Anthony Antedeminico d/b/a Tony’s Construction, a subcontractor, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained after falling into an excavated pit. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the common-law negligence claim, maintaining that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendant's potential negligence. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original decision, prompting the defendant to appeal. The appellate court subsequently reversed the lower court's order, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. The court reasoned that the defendant successfully demonstrated a lack of sufficient control over the construction site, thereby owing no duty of care to the injured plaintiff, and the plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue of fact to counter this.

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDuty of CareConstruction SiteSubcontractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityDutchess CountyNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1983

Byrd v. Long Island Lighting Co.

The Reverend Herbert Byrd, a Black man, initiated this action against Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and Local 1049, alleging discriminatory employment practices regarding seniority and testing under federal Civil Rights Acts and New York Human Rights Law, along with a claim of unfair representation against the union. Both defendants sought summary judgment on all claims. The court largely granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing most of Byrd's Title VII, Section 1981, and state law seniority claims as time-barred or lacking sufficient evidence. While the state testing claim against LILCO was also dismissed, the court denied LILCO's motion for summary judgment on a claim to enforce a 1974 conciliation agreement, allowing that specific issue to proceed against LILCO. All federal and state claims against Local 1049 were ultimately dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1866Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964Labor Management Relations ActNew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsSeniority SystemEmployment Testing
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kessel v. Public Service Commission

This case involves an appeal challenging a rate increase granted to the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) by the Public Service Commission. LILCO had requested the increase due to severe financial difficulties and the anticipated non-operation of its Shoreham nuclear plant, leading to a "Financial Stability Adjustment" (FSA) to improve cash flow without increasing income. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting that the Commission failed to exercise proper discretion, did not adequately consider ratepayers' interests, and improperly shifted the burden of proof. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding that it had appropriately balanced the interests of consumers and investors to preserve LILCO's financial integrity and ensure reliable service. The court also dismissed allegations regarding the burden of proof and judicial bias, concluding that the Commission's determinations were rational and supported by the record.

Rate IncreasePublic Service CommissionLong Island Lighting Company (LILCO)Financial Stability Adjustment (FSA)Utility RegulationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUtility RatesShoreham Nuclear PlantBurden of Proof
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 366 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