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. 2025 NY Slip Op 25022
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of Mountainside Residential Care Ctr. (S.O.)

Mountainside Residential Care Center petitioned for a guardian for S.O., an undocumented stroke patient needing Medicaid for care. The Supreme Court, Delaware County, appointed S.O.'s children, C.O. and S.O., Jr., as co-guardians of his property. The core issue was granting guardians authority to interact with federal immigration agencies (USCIS/ICE) to pursue Permanent Residence Under Color of Law (PRUCOL) status, essential for S.O. to qualify for Medicaid benefits. The court granted this authority, emphasizing the guardians' discretion and the sealed nature of the case, to allow the family to navigate the complex process for obtaining critical healthcare funding.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonsMedicaid EligibilityUndocumented ImmigrantsPRUCOL StatusImmigration LawHealth Care BenefitsElder CareFamily GuardiansCourt Orders
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 22387 [77 Misc 3d 20]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2022

Singletary v. Residential Mgt. Inc.

The Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed a judgment against Residential Management Inc. et al., landlords, for civil penalties. The initial decision found the landlords liable for failing to correct housing violations, as established by tenant testimony, photographic evidence, and subsequent inspections by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The landlords' defense of lack of access was rejected, as the record indicated multiple access dates and testimony from their own workers inconsistent with denial of access. Furthermore, the court found the landlords' argument regarding the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause unpreserved and without merit, reasoning that the penalties served a remedial purpose to ensure compliance with housing standards. The court also determined that the penalty schedule was not grossly disproportionate to the offense, and landlords had the ability to mitigate fines by correcting violations promptly.

Housing ViolationsCivil PenaltiesLandlord LiabilityExcessive Fines ClauseEighth AmendmentAdministrative Code § 27-2115Lack of Access DefenseAppellate ReviewRemedial PurposeHousing Maintenance Standards
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenman v. Page

Plaintiff George H. Greenman sustained injuries after falling from a roof while performing construction work on defendants' property. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied, and defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by the Supreme Court, Genesee County. The appellate court modified this order by denying defendants' cross-motion in part, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) causes of action, and granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) did not apply to defendant John Page, a developer who rehabilitates homes for resale, despite his residence in one of the apartments of the two-family dwelling where the incident occurred. The court clarified that the exemption only extends as far as its language fairly warrants, resolving doubts in favor of the general provision. A dissenting opinion argued that the homeowner exemption should apply due to the mixed residential and commercial use of the dwelling, adhering to the principle that owners contracting work directly related to residential use, even with a commercial purpose, are shielded.

Labor LawHomeowner ExemptionConstruction AccidentRoof FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeveloper LiabilityStatutory InterpretationWorkplace SafetyResidential Property
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartoo v. Buell

This case addresses whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) applies to structures used for both residential and commercial purposes. The court applies a "site and purpose" test to determine applicability. In Bartoo v Buell, the repair of a barn roof, used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage, was deemed primarily residential, thus granting the owner exemption. In Anderson v Flanagan, the addition of a bedroom to a home also operating a daycare center was found to be directly related to residential use, exempting the owner from liability. The Court concluded that owners of one- or two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work are shielded by the homeowner exemption when the work directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawDual-Use PropertyResidential UseCommercial UseStrict LiabilitySite and Purpose TestScaffold CollapseRoof RepairBedroom Addition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Joseph

Justice Manzanet-Daniels dissents in part regarding a conviction for second-degree burglary. The dissent argues that the basement, which was entirely sealed off and inaccessible from the residences above, should not qualify as a 'dwelling' under the burglary statute, referencing legal precedents set in Quinn v People and People v McCray. The core argument is that the increased penalty for dwelling burglary is meant to prevent 'midnight terror' and 'danger to human life,' which do not apply when the burglarized area is remote and inaccessible from living quarters. The dissent emphasizes that the critical factor for determining a 'dwelling' is the close contiguity and accessibility between residential and nonresidential elements, not necessarily the building's size. Therefore, the conviction for second-degree burglary should be reversed.

BurglarySecond Degree BurglaryDwellingAccessibilityInaccessibilityLiving QuartersStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawProperty CrimeDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 1989

Cannon v. Putnam

This case examines the scope of the dwelling-owner exemption under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241, which exempts owners of one and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work from certain safety duties. Defendant Albert Putnam owned a property with both residential and commercial uses. Plaintiff Robert Cannon was injured while installing a floodlight for aesthetic purposes related to Putnam's residence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decision, holding that the exemption applies when the commercial activities are housed in separate structures, and the work is unrelated to those commercial structures, focusing on the 'site and purpose of the work.' The court also found that Putnam did not direct or control the work.

Dwelling-owner exemptionLabor Law liabilitystatutory interpretationowner controlresidential propertycommercial propertyconstruction accidentpersonal injurynondelegable dutysite and purpose test
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hajba v. Silander

Miklos Hajba, a roofer, was injured after falling from a ladder while working on a residential dwelling owned by Myra Silander in Ulster County. Hajba and his wife commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against Myra Silander. Myra Silander had an oral agreement with her husband, H. E. Silander, a carpenter, for the construction of the dwelling, where he would supervise and perform work. The Supreme Court denied Myra Silander's motion for summary judgment, finding a triable issue regarding an agency relationship between her and her husband. The appellate court affirmed this denial, citing conflicting testimony on the agency relationship, Silander's control over the plaintiff, and notice of the hazardous conditions.

agency relationshipindependent contractorsummary judgmentLabor Law violationsconstruction accidentpersonal injuryproperty owner liabilityladder falluneven groundslippery surface
References
13
Case No. ADJ8475204
Regular
Aug 19, 2015

ABEL REYES GARCIA vs. LEE LAI, STATE FARM INSURANCE, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND (UEBTF)

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision finding the applicant excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h). The applicant was hired by Mr. Lai as a homeowner for less than 52 hours in the 90 days prior to his injury, and his duties were incidental to the maintenance of a residential dwelling, not Mr. Lai's business. The majority found that applicant's work at Mr. Lai's personal residence did not fall within the course of Mr. Lai's alleged business of managing rental properties. The dissenting opinion argued that Mr. Lai's management of multiple rental properties and arrangement of work for the applicant constituted a business, making the applicant an employee rather than an excluded casual residential employee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundLabor Code Section 3352(h)Casual Residential EmployeeCourse of Trade Business Profession OccupationHomeowner's InsuranceIndependent Contractor PresumptionReconsiderationFindings of FactCredibility Determination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zahn v. Pauker

Plaintiff Waldemar Zahn, an employee of a contractor, sustained severe injuries (broken nose, wrists, head injuries) after a scaffold collapsed while he was working on the exterior of defendant Pauker's house in Kingston, Ulster County on November 7, 1980. Zahn and his wife initiated legal action seeking damages, arguing that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposed absolute liability on the defendant. Defendant Pauker countered that she was exempt as the owner of a "one and two-family dwelling." The premises in question comprised both the Paukers' residence and a five-room medical office used by Dr. Sidney Pauker, the defendant's husband, which had its own entrance and for which tax deductions were taken. Special Term granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs, applying Labor Law § 240 (1), a decision that the defendant subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that the dual residential and commercial use of the property rendered it ineligible for the "one and two-family dwelling" exemption under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Scaffold CollapseLabor Law ExemptionOne and Two-Family DwellingsCommercial Use ExemptionAbsolute LiabilityStatutory InterpretationPartial Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityMedical Office in ResidencePersonal Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 214 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