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. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Case No. ADJ9180624
Regular
Jun 12, 2015

THEMAS THIES vs. NORGARD FARMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant with less than six months of employment who sustained a physical injury and claimed a resulting psychiatric injury. The applicant fell through a skylight while painting a roof, an event he argues was a sudden and extraordinary employment condition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's denial of the psychiatric claim. The Board found the fall through the skylight, despite the applicant knowing about skylights generally, was an uncommon and unexpected event, thus meeting the criteria of Labor Code section 3208.3(d) for an exception to the six-month employment rule for psychiatric injuries.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix-month employment thresholdreconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and Orderadministrative law judgeindustrial injurychemical shed
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

Angamarca v. New York City Partnership Housing Development Fund Co.

Plaintiff Angamarca sustained injuries after falling from a roof during construction, likely through an improperly covered skylight opening. Although there were no direct witnesses, circumstantial evidence and expert testimony supported the claim that Angamarca fell due to an elevation-related hazard, and no safety devices were provided. Defendants contended that Angamarca was the sole proximate cause of his injuries or fell from a nearby lift, but provided only speculative arguments without supporting evidence. The court granted Angamarca's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding prima facie evidence of a violation. Conversely, the court dismissed Angamarca's claim under Labor Law § 241-a, determining that the skylight opening did not fall under the protective scope of that specific section.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightSkylight FallLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevation-related HazardIndustrial Code Violation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wieszchowski v. Skidmore College

This litigation stems from an accident on July 18, 1986, where plaintiff David P. Wieszchowski fell through a skylight during construction at Skidmore College. Defendant MLB Industries, Inc. was the general contractor, and third-party defendant Martin E. Keller Roofing Company, Inc. was the subcontractor and plaintiff's employer. Plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was granted by the Supreme Court, along with motions for indemnification. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the absence of safety devices guarding the skylight constituted a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a matter of law, establishing absolute liability regardless of potential contributory negligence. The court also upheld MLB's contractual indemnification claim against Keller.

Labor LawAbsolute LiabilityConstruction AccidentSkylight FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityProximate Cause
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soriano v. St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc.

Plaintiff, a glazier, was injured when a ladder he was using to replace cracked glass panels in a church skylight kicked out, causing him to fall 20 feet. He sued the church under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability and granted defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling the work was routine maintenance not covered by the statute. The appellate court reversed, finding that replacing the cracked, heavy plate glass panels, which were not subject to normal wear and tear and made the skylight useless, constituted 'repair' work under Labor Law § 240 (1), not routine maintenance. The court concluded that the inexplicable shifting of the unsecured ladder established a prima facie case for liability, and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Workers' CompensationLadder AccidentGlazier InjurySkylight RepairLabor Law 240(1) LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalRoutine MaintenanceRepair WorkGravity-Related Risk
References
14
Case No. ADJ1805160
Regular
Aug 10, 2010

RAUL GARCIA vs. BRISTOLITE SKYLIGHTS, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted removal to clarify the WCJ's order regarding the production of medical reports. The Board amended the order to require defendants to provide all medical reports in their possession, not just those they intended to rely upon, per 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 10608. The Board also struck the provision requiring the lien claimant to prove interpreter market rates, as this issue was not properly before the WCJ. Finally, the Board found no evidence of bias by the WCJ despite the lien claimant's assertions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalDecision After RemovalLien ClaimantMedical ReportsInterpreter FeesMarket RateBiasJudicial NoticeWCJ
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1987

Bulson v. 1929 Associates

The plaintiff, a roofer, suffered severe burns after falling through a skylight due to a lack of safety devices. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, granted judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and awarded $350,000 in damages, also granting indemnification to defendants third-party plaintiffs. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial on damages was granted unless the defendants third-party plaintiffs and third-party defendants agree to increase the award to $500,000, upon which the judgment, as amended, would be affirmed. The plaintiff was awarded costs.

Personal InjuryRoofing AccidentSkylight FallLabor Law § 240(1)Premises LiabilityNegligenceIndemnificationDamages AppealInadequate AwardConditional Reversal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2001

Hyman v. Aurora Contractors, Inc.

The case involves an action brought pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) after a construction worker, the plaintiffs decedent, fell to his death through an unguarded skylight. The jury apportioned liability, finding Aurora Contractors, Inc. and Environmental Systems of New York liable. The court affirmed the judgment, noting that evidence of post-accident safety measures was properly admitted. Environmental's contention regarding an erroneous action against it due to a pending cross-claim was raised for the first time on appeal and deemed waived because Environmental had answered the cross-claim as a proper pleading.

Construction AccidentUnguarded SkylightLiability ApportionmentPost-Accident Safety MeasuresWaiver of ClaimCross-ClaimJury VerdictWrongful DeathLabor Law Violation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. Fox Meadow Builders, Inc.

Plaintiff James Clark, a roofer, was injured after falling through an uncovered skylight opening while working on a roof. He and his wife commenced an action for damages against the general contractor, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, leading to this appeal. The appellate court determined that the lack of proper safety devices to guard against elevation-related risks constituted a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that this statutory violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, reversing the Supreme Court's order and granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSummary JudgmentLabor LawStatutory ViolationProximate CauseContributory NegligenceRoofingSafety Devices
References
11
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 30706(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2010

Reilly-Geiger v. Dougherty

This case involves an appeal by defendants Susan Dougherty and Michael Goldenberg from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denying their motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, who remains unnamed, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while installing a skylight at the defendants' home. The plaintiff claimed negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200, asserting the ladder was placed on an unsecured tarp by the defendants or that they were aware of the dangerous condition. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding that the defendants failed to eliminate questions of fact regarding their creation or knowledge of the hazardous condition, thus not demonstrating their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyConstruction AccidentLadder Fall
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 17 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