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

405 Bedford Avenue Development Corp. v. New Metro Construction, Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal in a declaratory judgment action where 405 Bedford Avenue Corp. sought indemnification from New Metro Construction, Ltd., and Russo Construction, LLC, for an underlying personal injury action brought by Santos Hernandez, an employee of Russo. Hernandez was injured at a construction site owned by 405 Bedford, leading to a Labor Law claim. The Supreme Court denied New Metro and Russo's motion for summary judgment, which argued they had no contractual obligation to indemnify. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to New Metro and Russo. The reversal was based on the absence of a written indemnification agreement, a requirement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and the prior finding that Roth & Sons (New Metro's predecessor) was not liable in the underlying action. The case was remitted for a judgment declaring that New Metro and Russo are not obligated to indemnify 405 Bedford.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryWritten ContractConstruction AccidentLabor LawAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fitzgerald v. New York City School Construction Authority

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment to the defendants New York City School Construction Authority, New York City Board of Education, and Pillar Construction, Inc., dismissing causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6). The case involved an injured plaintiff who was struck by a backing forklift without a signal person. The plaintiffs argued a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (d), which requires guidance for backing trucks. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the specific safety regulation cited (12 NYCRR 23-9.7 (d)) was inapplicable to forklifts, which are governed by 12 NYCRR 23-9.8, a provision lacking the explicit guidance requirement. As the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the Supreme Court's decision was upheld.

Construction SafetyPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeForklift AccidentAppellate ReviewSafety RegulationsNondelegable DutyWorkers' Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prats v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Plaintiff, an assistant mechanic for AWL Industries, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while inspecting an air-conditioning unit at the World Trade Center, a project contracted by defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The District Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leading to a certified question to the Court of Appeals regarding whether inspections of construction work fall under the statute's purview. The Court, distinguishing the case from Martinez v City of New York, held in the affirmative, emphasizing that the plaintiff's inspection was integral to and contemporaneous with broader building alteration work, not mere routine maintenance. The decision affirmed that such activities, performed by a mechanic under a construction contract, are protected under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction WorkBuilding AlterationWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationCertified QuestionNew York Court of AppealsInspection ActivitySummary Judgment Reversal
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01368
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2023

Lanmark Group, Inc. v. New York City Sch. Constr. Auth.

In this case, Lanmark Group, Inc. (plaintiff/appellant) sued the New York City School Construction Authority (defendant/respondent) alleging damages from uncontemplated delays in a construction project. The plaintiff argued it incurred costs by paying tradespeople for eight hours despite them working only five hours daily. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, finding that the delays were contemplated by the parties' contract. The court highlighted that the project labor agreement (PLA), which the plaintiff agreed to, required payment for an eight-hour shift regardless of actual work hours, and that the plaintiff was aware of relevant laws affecting work schedules. The court concluded that the defendant did not breach a fundamental obligation of the contract.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentProject Labor AgreementConstruction DelaysWage PaymentAppellate ReviewConstruction ContractNew York City Building CodeWork HoursDamages Claim
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03976
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Passantino v. City of New York

The case involves Joseph Passantino, who suffered a trip and fall on a scaffold in a fenced-off, locked construction area. Defendants New York City School Construction Authority and Admiral Construction LLC sought to compel depositions of two former Department of Education principals. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the cross-motion of defendants City of New York and New York City Department of Education to quash the subpoenas, finding the depositions futile as the principals lacked personal knowledge of the fall or alleged hazards. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concurring that the deposition testimony was not material and necessary.

DisclosureExamination Before TrialSubpoenasQuash SubpoenaTrip and FallScaffold AccidentConstruction SitePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewDiscovery Dispute
References
3
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07282 [144 AD3d 714]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2016

Arnell Constr. Corp. v. New York City School Constr. Auth.

This case involves an appeal by Arnell Construction Corporation (plaintiff) from an order that granted summary judgment to New York City School Construction Authority (defendant) and denied Arnell's cross-motion. The central dispute was whether the plaintiff was contractually obligated to install a sidewalk shed as 'extra work' during a school renovation project. The Appellate Division found the contract language ambiguous regarding the sidewalk shed requirement and noted insufficient evidence from both parties concerning the scope of work and the applicable building codes. Consequently, the court modified the Supreme Court's order by denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment, while affirming the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion, concluding that triable issues of fact remain.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentConstruction LawContract InterpretationSidewalk ShedBuilding Code ComplianceAmbiguous ContractAppellate DivisionDamagesExtra Work
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2016

Baugh v. New York City School Construction Authority

Olando Baugh appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The Court found that Baugh established a prima facie case that Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated and proximately caused his injuries because he was provided an unsecured ladder, which was not sufficient to prevent his fall. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted against the New York City School Construction Authority, the City of New York, and Plaza Construction Corp.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary judgmentLiabilityLadder fallSafety devicesProximate causeAppellate reviewNondelegable duty
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Candela v. New York City School Construction Authority

Plaintiff Calogero Candela sustained injuries when a window sash fell on him at a construction site. He brought a claim under Labor Law § 200 against the New York City School Construction Authority, Spacemaster Building Systems, LLC, and TDX-Becom. A jury initially found in favor of the defendants, implicitly concluding they lacked notice of the defective windows. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the jury had no reasonable basis to reject testimony indicating the defendants, particularly Spacemaster, had actual or constructive notice of widespread window balance system defects prior to the accident.

Construction AccidentWindow DefectLabor LawPremises LiabilityNoticeJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNegligenceWorkplace SafetyFalling Object
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jara v. New York Racing Ass'n

An employee of Seasons Contracting Corp., acting as the plaintiff, suffered personal injuries during demolition work at Aqueduct Race Track, owned by New York Racing Association, Inc., and overseen by Tishman Construction Corporation of New York as the construction manager. The plaintiff fell eight feet while traversing a partially demolished wall and debris. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants on Labor Law claims and denied the plaintiff's motions. On appeal, the order was modified: the defendants' summary judgment motions were denied, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability was granted, and leave was granted to supplement the bill of particulars with Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7 (e)(1) and (2). The appellate court determined that the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices, which proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries, and that the specified Industrial Code sections were applicable.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeConstruction AccidentDemolition SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityElevation Risk
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tenalp Construction Corp. v. Roberts

This case addresses whether the New York State Commissioner of Labor can mandate a public works contractor to pay prevailing wages to an employee who performs both supervisory and nonsupervisory tasks under Labor Law § 220. Petitioner Tenalp Construction Corp. challenged a prior determination by the Commissioner that it had willfully underpaid Steven Sauter, a superintendent/carpenter, for his carpentry duties on a public school construction project. The court affirmed the Commissioner's finding, emphasizing that an employee's job title does not override the nature of the work performed. It held that if the work is predominantly physical and falls under the statute's protection, the prevailing wage applies, regardless of additional supervisory roles. The court underscored the necessity for a liberal interpretation of Labor Law § 220 to fulfill its protective intent for workers.

prevailing wageLabor Lawpublic workssupervisory dutiesnonsupervisory dutiescarpenterwillfulnessstatutory interpretationNew York State Department of Laboremployee classification
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 11,343 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