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

Livery Owners Coalition v. State Insurance Fund

This case addresses the constitutionality of a Workers’ Compensation Law amendment defining livery car base owners as employers of independent owner-operators for workers' compensation purposes. The Livery Owners Coalition sought an injunction against the State Insurance Fund and Workers’ Compensation Board to prevent enforcement of this statute, while the defendants sought dismissal and a declaration of the statute's constitutionality. The court, deferring to the agencies' interpretation, found their stance reasonable in expanding workers' compensation coverage and ensuring operator protection. It also determined that the statute and its application have a rational basis and do not violate equal protection. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction was denied, and the defendants' application to dismiss the complaint and declare the statute constitutional was granted.

ConstitutionalityWorkers' Compensation LawLivery IndustryIndependent ContractorsEmployer DefinitionStatutory InterpretationEqual ProtectionInjunctionRational Basis ReviewState Agencies
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1999

Nevins v. Essex Owners Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Accell Elevator Operations, Inc., was severely injured while modernizing elevators at premises owned by defendant Essex Owners Corp. The injury occurred when a 'run station' device, used to test the elevator, malfunctioned, causing the elevator cab to descend unexpectedly. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action against Essex, alleging negligence under Labor Law § 200 and violations of Labor Law § 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied Essex's cross motions for summary judgment regarding these claims. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims, ruling that Essex did not exercise supervisory control over the work and that the cited industrial code provisions regarding planking and falling objects were inapplicable.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentElevator AccidentConstruction Site SafetySafe Work SiteNegligenceSupervisory ControlThird-Party ActionPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05844 [198 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2021

Morley v. BPP St Owner, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a seven-year-old child, JM, who sustained a thumb injury at an ice skating rink due to an alleged defect in the dasher boards. The child's parent, Risa Morley, filed a negligence action against BPP St Owner, LLC and IRE Crown Rinks, LLC, alleging negligent ownership, operation, and control of the rink, including negligent supervision and maintenance, and sought damages for post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, reinstating the claims for negligent assembly and maintenance of the dasher boards and the derivative loss of society. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the negligent supervision and PTSD claims, finding insufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact.

NegligenceIce Skating RinkDasher BoardsSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryPTSDNegligent MaintenanceAppellate ReviewChild Injury
References
3
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07295
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2025

Morales v. 88th Ave. Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Elihu Romero Morales, was injured at a construction site in Queens when struck in the eye by a spark from ironwork. He sued 88th Avenue Owner, LLC, and NY Developers & Managers, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The defendants then initiated a second third-party action against subcontractors Feinstein Iron Works, Inc., and Construction Realty Safety Group, Inc., for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the second third-party complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this order, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, awarding summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims, and directing the dismissal of the second third-party complaint without prejudice due to a four-year delay in its commencement. The Court found Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable as sparks are not objects requiring securing for elevation-related hazards, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) inapplicable as the plaintiff was not directly engaged in the eye-endangering operation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardThird-Party ActionDismissal Without PrejudiceSparksEye InjurySubcontractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
22
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03117
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2017

Trinajstic v. St. Owner, LP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied motions for summary judgment. The case involves Thomas Trinajstic, a laborer, who fell during a renovation project and sued St. Owner, LP, and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. under Labor Law § 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party claim for common-law indemnification against Pat Pellegrini Flooring Corporation. The court found questions of fact regarding whether dust created by Pellegrini's workers contributed to Trinajstic's fall, thus barring dismissal of the Labor Law claim. Furthermore, summary resolution of the indemnification claim was deemed premature due to conflicting evidence on the cause of the fall (dust vs. broken tiles) and the defendants' failure to demonstrate a lack of their own negligence.

Labor Law § 241(6)Summary Judgment MotionCommon-Law IndemnificationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site AccidentThird-Party LitigationWorkplace Safety RegulationsDust HazardPremises Owner LiabilityContractor Negligence
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01436 [192 AD3d 839]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2021

Rodriguez v. HY 38 Owner, LLC

Plaintiff Herman Rodriguez was injured at a construction site owned by HY 38 Owner, LLC, where Monadnock Construction, Inc. was the construction manager. The accident occurred while repairing a plywood gate, when another part of the gate was blown shut by wind, striking him. Rodriguez sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to HY 38 Owner, LLC, and Monadnock Construction, Inc., dismissing these claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to prima facie establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because they did not adequately address the premises liability theory of the plaintiff's case. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of their motion.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionDangerous ConditionWork Site SafetyContractor Liability
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05574 [242 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Murillo v. Downtown NYC Owner, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order dismissing Luis Murillo's Labor Law claims (§ 241 (6) and § 200) and common-law negligence claim against Downtown NYC Owner, LLC, and related entities. The court held that Murillo, a worker responsible for debris removal, could not recover for injuries caused by the very condition he was tasked with remedying. Furthermore, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' common-law and contractual indemnity claims against third-party defendant William Erath & Son, Inc., concluding that Erath had no contractual duty to perform debris removal, and thus Murillo's accident did not arise out of Erath's work. The decision emphasizes the principle that responsibility for cleanup tasks dictates liability.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkDebris RemovalContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceThird-Party Claim
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03339 [205 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Tavarez v. LIC Dev. Owner, L.P.

Plaintiff Ruth Tavarez sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while employed by Collins Building Services, Inc. She alleged negligence and Labor Law violations against LIC Development Owner, L.P. LIC then filed a third-party action against Collins for indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Collins' motion to dismiss LIC's third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the indemnification provision did not apply to LIC and that common-law indemnification was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a 'grave injury'.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Labor Law ViolationsThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewGrave InjuryContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07121 [188 AD3d 1292]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Villada v. 452 Fifth Owners, LLC

The plaintiff, Carlos Villada, was allegedly injured while working on a roof demolition project at property owned by 452 Fifth Owners, LLC. He was injured when a wheeled dumpster he was pulling up a plywood ramp tipped over. Villada commenced an action against 452 Fifth Owners, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court denied 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment dismissing these causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment. The court found that 452 Fifth established, prima facie, that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and did not have the authority to supervise or control the work. The cross-appeal by CBRE, Inc. was dismissed.

Personal InjuryRoof DemolitionSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReversalLabor Law ComplianceDangerous ConditionSupervision and Control
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,288 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