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

Claim of Wallace v. Oswego Wire, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a decision finding a claimant's left hand injury consequentially related to a prior right knee injury. While recuperating from a work-related right knee injury, the claimant's knee gave out, causing him to cut his left hand with a table saw. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the claimant's conduct was an intervening act. The court, led by Peters, J., affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence that using the table saw, despite the knee condition, was not an unreasonable intervening cause, as prior buckling was infrequent. Judges Crew III, Carpinello, Lahtinen, and Kane concurred with the decision.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryIntervening CauseRight Knee InjuryLeft Hand InjuryTable Saw AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFactual Issue
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03036 [238 AD3d 973]
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2025

Cadena v. Kupferstein

Wilson Cadena, a carpenter employed by Molding Decor, Inc., sustained finger injuries while using a table saw during a renovation project at a one-family residence owned by Moses Kupferstein. Cadena sued Kupferstein and BBM Construction Corp. (Kupferstein's company and the general contractor) under Labor Law § 241 (6) for industrial code violations due to an alleged lack of a safety guard. The Supreme Court denied Cadena's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal against Kupferstein, finding the homeowner's exemption applicable as he did not direct or control the work. However, the court modified the order by denying BBM's motion for summary judgment, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding the availability of a safety guard for the table saw.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ViolationHomeowner's ExemptionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilityTable Saw Safety
References
23
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 08220 [192 AD3d 859]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2021

Cruz v. 1142 Bedford Ave., LLC

The case involves Maximo Cruz, who sustained left hand injuries while operating a table saw at a Brooklyn construction site. He sued 1142 Bedford Avenue, LLC, J. Vasquez Meat Corp., and 2 Big Meadow Lane, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law and Industrial Code provisions related to workplace safety. The Appellate Division modified a Supreme Court order, denying 2 Big Meadow's motion for summary judgment by finding triable issues regarding its 'owner' status under Labor Law § 241 (6). Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on liability against 1142 Bedford Avenue, LLC, and J. Vasquez Meat Corp., concluding that the malfunctioning table saw without proper safety features was the proximate cause of the injuries. This decision reaffirms the nondelegable duty of owners and contractors to ensure a safe work environment and comply with specific safety regulations.

Construction accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law Section 241(6)Industrial CodeSummary judgment motionOwner liabilityProximate causeTable sawWorkplace safetyAppellate Division
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1999

Cruz v. Toscano

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that factual issues regarding defendant Philip Toscano's supervision and control over renovation work, which could justify liability for plaintiff's injuries under Labor Law § 200, did not exist. There was no evidence that Toscano exercised supervision over plaintiff's use of the table saw, nor was the duty to provide a safe workplace breached, as the injuries arose from the employer's tools and methods. Furthermore, there was no evidence that defendants supplied the allegedly defective saw or had notice of its condition. Plaintiff also continued to use the saw despite being aware of its missing guard.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityContractor MethodsSupervisory ControlDefective ToolsNotice of DefectPersonal InjuryNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2012

Kruk v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a lower court's decision granting summary judgment to the defendant. The case involved plaintiff Jose Kruk, who was injured while using a power saw and subsequently filed a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6). The defendant successfully argued that the saw was equipped with necessary protective guards as mandated by Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12 (c) (1). Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact regarding a defective guard or the necessity of a saw table. Consequently, the court found the defendant entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPower Saw InjuryIndustrial CodeProtective GuardsAppellate DecisionAffirmanceWorker SafetyConstruction AccidentStatutory Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03757 [161 AD3d 636]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Cintron v. RC Dolner, LLC

Plaintiff John Cintron Jr., a security guard, was injured when he backed into a wood plank protruding from a saw table at a construction site. Defendant RC Dolner, LLC, the construction manager, moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiff's motion to renew and, upon renewal, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding triable issues of fact regarding defendant's control of the work site and notice of the unsafe condition. Evidence showed defendant had general supervisory authority, designated equipment storage areas, held safety meetings, and had exclusive oversight over subcontractors.

Security Guard InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary Judgment DenialTriable Issues of FactSupervisory ControlWork Site SafetyDangerous ConditionNotice RequirementAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury Litigation
References
3
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05108 [140 AD3d 1102]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2016

Batzin v. Ferrone

Sergio Batzin, an appellant, sustained personal injuries while using a table saw during renovation work at a residential home owned by Dennis Ferrone. Batzin initiated legal action against Ferrone, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). Ferrone sought summary judgment, asserting the homeowner's exemption, which the Supreme Court initially granted. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision. The court ruled that the homeowner's exemption does not apply to owners who undertake renovations for purely commercial purposes, such as intending to resell the property for profit. As Ferrone admitted to purchasing the home for renovation and resale, and did not reside there prior to the accident, the court found he failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to the exemption, requiring his credibility regarding intent to be resolved by a factfinder.

Homeowner's ExemptionLabor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentRenovation WorkCommercial PurposeResidential PropertyIntent to ResellCredibilityTable Saw Accident
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guard Insurance Group, Inc. ex rel. Baxter v. Techtronic Industries Co.

Guard Insurance Group, as assignee for Scott Baxter, filed a product liability and negligence action against Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., and other defendants, including Home Depot, USA, Inc. The case stems from injuries Baxter sustained while using a Ryobi table saw manufactured and sold by defendants, and Guard seeks reimbursement for workers' compensation payments. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses of substantial modification, spoliation of evidence, and statute of limitations. The Court denied the motion to dismiss claims based on substantial modification and spoliation, finding issues of fact. While claims for failure to warn and implied warranty against manufacturing defendants were dismissed, the implied warranty claim against Home Depot survived due to conflicting testimony on the purchase date. The motion for summary judgment was largely denied, allowing most claims to proceed to trial.

Product LiabilityNegligenceSummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation SubrogationTable Saw AccidentProduct Design DefectSafety Guard RemovalSpoliation of EvidenceBreach of Implied WarrantyStatute of Limitations Defense
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lara v. Delta International Machinery Corp.

This memorandum decision addresses a product liability action filed by Alonso and Elizabeth Lara against Delta International Machinery Corp. following Alonso Lara's hand injury from a Delta table saw. The court granted Delta's motion to preclude the Plaintiffs' expert, Stanley H. Fein, finding his design defect opinions unreliable due to a lack of testing and speculative methodology. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' design defect claim was dismissed for lack of admissible expert testimony. However, the court denied summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, acknowledging a genuine dispute regarding whether adequate warnings could have been conveyed to Lara by third parties despite his inability to read English. Additionally, claims for breach of express warranty, manufacturing defect, and loss of services were deemed abandoned, and the breach of implied warranty claim was dismissed as time-barred.

Products LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardRule 702Table Saw AccidentIndustrial SafetyMechanical Engineering
References
128
Showing 1-10 of 84 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