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
Dec 13, 1978

Waters v. Patent Scaffold Co.

This personal injury action arises from Charles Waters' fall from a scaffolding I-beam in 1970, allegedly unbolted by a co-worker. Waters was employed by I. Rosen & Sons, Inc., a masonry subcontractor. The defendants included the general contractor-owner and Patent Scaffold Co., which leased and initially installed the scaffolding. The court determined that Patent Scaffold Co. was an independent supplier, not a contractor, and thus not liable under Labor Law § 240, nor for common-law negligence or strict liability, as the alleged duties devolved upon the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order partially granting summary judgment to Patent Scaffold Co. was modified to grant summary judgment on all causes of action, and as modified, affirmed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentContractor LiabilityLessor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityConstruction Site SafetyDuty to SuperviseStrict Liability
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01392 [214 AD3d 1332]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2023

Matter of Niagara Falls Captains & Lieutenants Assn. (City of Niagara Falls)

The Niagara Falls Captains and Lieutenants Association, as petitioner, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, which denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had previously denied the association's grievances against the City of Niagara Falls. The petitioner contended that the award should be vacated because it failed to meet the standards of finality and definiteness required by CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the lower court's order, emphasizing the extremely limited judicial review of arbitration awards. The court found that the award sufficiently defined the parties' rights and obligations regarding the alleged violation of their collective bargaining agreement or past practice concerning the filling of six vacancies by the City. Ultimately, the court concluded that the award was definite and final, resolving the submitted controversy without creating new ambiguities.

Arbitration AwardVacate AwardFinalityDefinitenessCPLR 7511Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievancesJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionPublic Sector Employment
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00748 [136 AD3d 423]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2016

DaSilva v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Carlos DaSilva was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (SPS) and Archstone entities, after falling from scaffolding that moved. The court found his accident was proximately caused by a Labor Law violation and rejected the recalcitrant worker defense due to lack of evidence he knew he was expected to use a ladder. Defendant Everest Scaffolding, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing a contractual indemnification cross-claim was granted. However, SPS and Archstone's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims was denied, as triable issues of fact existed regarding SPS's supervisory control and constructive notice. The Appellate Division affirmed these lower court orders.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSupervisory ControlConstructive NoticeThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04452
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2018

Martin v. Niagara Falls Bridge Commn.

Plaintiff Eldred Jay Martin, an appellant, sustained injuries from a 25-30 foot fall while dismantling bridge scaffolding. He sued under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, Niagara Falls Bridge Commission and Liberty Maintenance, Inc., dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified this decision, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to triable issues of fact concerning the adequacy of safety devices provided. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, as he allegedly failed to use available safety equipment.

Scaffolding accidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyFall ProtectionWorkplace InjuryProximate CauseSafety DevicesEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cassidy v. Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc.

A laborer, referred to as the plaintiff, sustained neck and back injuries after falling from a temporary loading dock when its safety railing detached. The incident occurred at a construction site owned by Midtown West A.L.L.C. and general contracted by Rockrose GC MWA L.L.C., with the loading dock installed by Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. The motion court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) claims, holding the owner and general contractor liable for the failure of the elevated platform designed to protect from gravity-related hazards. However, the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law § 241 (6), Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence were dismissed due to the loading dock being classified as a platform, not a scaffold, and a lack of evidence regarding notice of an improperly reattached rail. The appellate court affirmed these rulings, also declining to consider a new argument raised by the defendants on appeal.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentElevated PlatformSafety RailGravity-Related HazardIndustrial Code § 23-1.22(c)(2)NegligenceSite Safety Expert
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09604
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Maggio v. 24 West 57 PFF, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Maggio, a drywall installer, was injured after falling from a scaffold staircase at a premises owned by 24 West 57 APF, LLC and leased by Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY). The scaffold, constructed by Atlantic Hoist & Scaffolding, LLC, had a modified staircase with plywood covering some steps, lacking anti-slip protection and having an irregular rise. Plaintiff attributed his fall to these conditions and the presence of construction debris. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from defendants 24 West and ATNY, citing outstanding discovery, and later denied renewed motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division found 24 West and ATNY justified in bringing the second motion but denied their request for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual questions regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The court also denied plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting ATNY conditional contractual indemnification against R&R, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2001

Colon v. Aldus III Associates

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants in an action stemming from a plaintiff's decedent's fall from a scaffold. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted the defendants' motions, and this decision was unanimously affirmed. The court found that defendant Triboro Maintenance was a division of Property Resources Corp., and Property Resources Corp. was the decedent's employer, thus invoking Workers' Compensation Law for dismissal. Additionally, defendants Aldus III Associates (building owner) and NHP/PRC Management Company LLC (managing agent) were also dismissed because Property Resources Corp. was integrally related as a general partner and member, respectively, negating claims of separate enterprise despite different legal structures for other benefits.

Scaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer ImmunityCorporate VeilLimited PartnershipJoint VentureBuilding OwnershipManaging AgentAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00720 [202 AD3d 433]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Galeno v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Fidel Galeno was injured in December 2012 after falling through a sidewalk shed roof while performing façade repairs on a building. The building was owned by Elk 22 Realty LLC, net leased to 20 West, and managed by ABS Partners Real Estate, LLC (collectively, the owner defendants). Everest Scaffolding, Inc. constructed the sidewalk shed, and Schnelbacher-Sendon Group, LLC (SSG) was hired for façade repairs, subcontracting work to Ramon Construction Corporation (Ramon), plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court denied conditional summary judgment for the owner defendants on contractual indemnification against SSG and Ramon, and granted SSG's and Ramon's motions for summary judgment dismissing contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification/contribution claims. The Supreme Court also denied Everest's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, granted dismissal of contractual indemnification claims against Everest by 20 West and ABS, and denied the owner defendants' cross-motion for conditional summary judgment against Everest. The Appellate Division modified the orders, denying SSG's, Ramon's, and Everest's motions to the extent they sought dismissal of 20 West and ABS's contractual indemnification claims against them, and otherwise affirmed. Issues of fact concerning proximate cause by Everest or Ramon remain, precluding dismissal of negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Everest. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against SSG were properly dismissed due to lack of negligence or supervision by SSG, while similar claims against Ramon were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySidewalk Shed AccidentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewProximate CauseConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. 163 AD3d 1496
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2018

Provens v. Ben-Fall Dev., LLC

Plaintiff John O. Provens sustained injuries after falling from a roof on which he had been working, allegedly due to detached "toe boards." Plaintiffs commenced an action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially granted defendant David Alen Sattora's cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against him. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously modified the order. The Appellate Division granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding the failure of the safety device was a violation as a matter of law. It also reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action against Sattora, asserting plaintiffs had standing and Sattora failed to establish prima facie entitlement to dismissal. Furthermore, the court granted Sattora's cross-motion to dismiss the Ben-Fall defendants' cross claims for common-law and contractual indemnification, concluding Sattora was not actively negligent for common-law indemnification and no valid contractual indemnification agreement existed for the relevant work.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyRoofing AccidentProximate CauseSafety Device FailureCross ClaimsContractual Indemnification
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1997

Garcia v. 1122 East 180th Street Corp.

Plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained serious injuries after falling 15-20 feet from a scaffold at a school construction site. The scaffold, designed with wheel locks for stability, had broken locks, leading the plaintiff to use sheetrock pieces to stabilize it, and he further placed an A-frame ladder atop the scaffold to gain additional height. The makeshift stabilization failed, causing the scaffold to move, overturn, and the plaintiff to fall. The IAS Court initially denied partial summary judgment on liability, citing unresolved factual issues, but the appellate court disagreed, finding the plaintiff's proofs unrebutted and the factual issues immaterial. The court determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) applied, imposing absolute liability on the defendant since the scaffold failed to provide proper protection, regardless of the plaintiff's own negligence or claims of being a "recalcitrant worker," thus reversing the lower court's decision and granting summary judgment on liability.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityRecalcitrant Worker DefenseWorker SafetyElevated WorkPersonal InjuryAppellate Division
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,459 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