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
Oct 20, 1999

Welch v. Riverbay Corp.

Plaintiff sustained injuries after slipping and falling in a stairwell within an office building. The incident, occurring on a cold January evening, was potentially caused by either snow blown or tracked into the unheated stairwell or by ice formed from a leak. A coworker testified that the plaintiff stated he slipped on ice and warned others, and several coworkers reported wet and icy conditions, which they had previously complained about to the defendants. The court found an issue of fact regarding whether defendants had notice of a recurring dangerous condition, making summary judgment inappropriate. The defendants' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

slip and fallsummary judgmentpremises liabilitynotice of dangerous conditionicy conditionsstairwell accidentcoworker testimonycredibility issuesaffirmpersonal injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Queensbury Union Free School District

Plaintiff, a plumber, suffered a fractured femur after falling on a stairwell during a renovation project for the Queensbury Union Free School District, with Turner Construction Company as the construction manager. Plaintiff initiated a personal injury action, citing negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), alleging inadequate stairwell lighting. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence, including a coworker's affidavit about faulty lighting, to establish triable issues of fact regarding the hazardous condition and defendants' constructive notice. The appellate court thus denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, affirming the order as modified and allowing the case to proceed.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction SafetyPersonal InjuryStairwell FallInadequate LightingConstructive NoticeTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskal v. Fleet Bank

Plaintiff Mark Moskal, a jeweler, was robbed in Fleet Bank's basement vault area after being directed by a security guard to use a stairwell due to elevator renovations. Moskal and his wife sued Fleet Bank, the building owner (UOB Realty), managing agent (Axiom Real Estate), security company (Effective Security Systems, Inc.), and contractor (Interior Construction Company), alleging negligence for failure to protect him from foreseeable danger. The court granted summary judgment to UOB, Axiom, Security, and Interior, finding the attack unforeseeable by them and no duty owed. However, Fleet Bank's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, as the court found questions of fact for a jury regarding Fleet's potential duty to Moskal, given its awareness of the stairwell's danger and its specific policy prohibiting customer use, which was allegedly disregarded.

ForeseeabilityNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty of CareCriminal Act of Third PersonsBank SecurityStairwell DangerConstruction NegligenceRobbery
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horan v. Dormitory Authority

Thomas Horan, a college student, suffered severe injuries including a fractured skull and permanent brain damage after falling four stories through an uncovered stairwell opening at a Siena College construction site. He was employed by a general contractor engaged by the defendant, Dormitory Authority, the owner of the building. The trial court found the defendant liable due to a violation of Labor Law § 241-a, which mandates protection for workers in stairwells, and awarded damages to both Thomas and his father, Daniel Horan. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of liability against the Dormitory Authority, emphasizing the non-delegable duty imposed on owners under the Labor Law. While upholding the $350,000 damage award for Thomas, the court found the $15,000 award for his father's derivative claim excessive and ordered a reduction to $7,500, conditionally affirming that portion of the judgment.

Construction AccidentStairwell FallLabor Law ViolationOwner LiabilityNon-delegable DutyDirected VerdictExcessive DamagesPersonal InjuryBrain DamageAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. G.H. Development & Construction Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of F. W. Webb Company, was injured after falling down an unprotected basement stairwell while delivering a unit to a construction site in Warren County. He sued the property owner (defendant) under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment regarding Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims and common-law negligence. On appeal, the court found the defendant liable under Labor Law § 241 (6) due to the unprotected stairwell, stating the plaintiff was a protected worker. However, the court erred in denying defendant's cross-motion to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as the defendant, as record owner, did not control the construction. Additionally, the court erred in denying Fava Plumbing & Heating, Inc.'s cross-motion for summary judgment, as Fava neither contributed to the injury nor controlled the worksite. The court affirmed that indemnification requests were premature, except for Fava.

Construction site injuryLabor Law § 241(6) liabilityOwner liabilityCommon-law negligenceIndemnificationSummary judgmentThird-party claimsFourth-party claimsConstruction workerStatutory protection
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1995

People v. Cantres

The decedent was shot to death at point-blank range in a housing project stairwell on April 16, 1992. The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct witnesses and the weapon was never recovered. Key testimony came from residents Lehra Brooks and Warren Coles, who placed the defendant at the scene, and from Steven Wise, who testified about the defendant's alleged confession. The court reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence and whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, ultimately affirming the conviction.

MurderCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWitness CredibilityConsciousness of GuiltHomicideCriminal LawNew York
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Bivens

Plaintiff, a City of Oswego plumbing inspector, fell through an open stairwell at the Bivens residence during an inspection, while defendant Gibson was engaged in renovation work. Plaintiff claimed violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against the defendants. The court, referencing Mordkofsky v V.C.V. Dev. Corp., clarified that Labor Law protections extend only to workers employed by an owner, contractor, or their agent. As the plaintiff was an inspector and not an employee of the defendants, he was not deemed a beneficiary of these statutory provisions. Therefore, the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims based on these Labor Law violations were granted.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Statutory BeneficiaryConstruction Site SafetyPlumbing InspectionFall AccidentRenovation WorkIndependent ContractorWorker Classification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Gartner

Respondent, a laborer employed by Alfred Van Keuren Construction Co., sustained injuries while working on a two-story building owned by Greenwood Estates, Inc. and general contracted by G & G Construction Co. The accident occurred when the respondent fell through an unprotected stairwell opening after stepping on a piece of plywood. The case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment in favor of the plaintiff against both defendants. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in charging that contributory negligence was not a defense to a violation of Labor Law § 241, citing *Corbett v. Brown*. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentStairwell FallContributory NegligenceNew TrialAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorker Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cody v. State

The claimant, a construction worker, was injured after falling through an unsecured plywood platform covering a stairwell. He filed an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) by the defendant. The Court of Claims initially found for the defendant, stating the claimant was constructing the platform and failed to prove proximate causation by lack of a safety device. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the unsecured platform itself was an inadequate safety device against elevation-related hazards, constituting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that this violation was a proximate cause of the injury, regardless of the claimant's own conduct, and remitted the matter for a determination of damages.

Construction AccidentLabor LawElevation-Related HazardUnsecured PlatformProximate CauseWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewLiabilitySafety DeviceNegligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Zanki v. Cahill

Plaintiff sought damages for psychological injuries after slipping and falling down a stairwell. She claimed a recurrent dangerous condition of spilled food and drink, but admitted not seeing what caused her to slip, only noticing her sleeve was wet post-fall. The lower court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, which was affirmed on appeal. The majority found insufficient evidence that the alleged condition existed at the time of the fall or proximately caused it, relying on speculation. The dissenting opinion argued that the wet sleeve, coupled with evidence of frequent spillages and defendant's awareness, provided enough circumstantial evidence to raise a factual issue regarding causation and constructive notice of a recurring dangerous condition.

slip and fallpersonal injurysummary judgmentrecurring dangerous conditionproximate causecircumstantial evidencepremises liabilitynoticewet floorstairwell accident
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 41 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