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
Apr 10, 2002

Hernandez v. 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp.

Plaintiff Alonso Hernandez was severely injured when a hoist, which lacked proper counterweights and securement, collapsed, dragging him from a six-story building. The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding that the hoist was not constructed or operated to provide proper protection. The court rejected the defendant's arguments of recalcitrant worker and sole proximate cause, stating that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the court affirmed the grant of contractual indemnification to the owner, 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp., against the subcontractor, Jumbo Construction Corp., based on the terms of their agreement, as the owner's liability was purely statutory.

Labor Law § 240(1)Hoist CollapseConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06093 [210 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2022

Polonia v. 14 Sutton Tenants Corp.

Plaintiff Charles Felix Polonia was injured after tripping on a wooden plank on a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. He filed suit against 14 Sutton Tenants Corporation and Central Construction Management, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Polonia's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss all causes of action against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Labor Law claims were inapplicable and that Central Construction Management did not create the dangerous condition or supervise the work. The court determined that Polonia's fall was not due to a height differential or lack of fall protection as required by the cited Labor Law sections.

Construction AccidentSidewalk BridgeLabor LawSummary JudgmentFall ProtectionIndustrial CodeNegligenceSupervisory ControlPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Matter of Tenants United Fighting for the Lower E. Side v. City of New York Dept. of City Planning

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Citicorp

In a personal injury action, a building maintenance worker sued the building's owner and sole tenant after slipping on snow and ice on the roof. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the tenant and denied it to the owner, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for further disclosure. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified. The action was dismissed against the tenant, finding the plaintiff was its special employee. The owner's motion for summary judgment was also granted, as the out-of-possession landlord was not responsible for general maintenance or snow removal, which was the tenant's sole responsibility, and the cause of the fall was not a structural defect.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeOut-of-Possession LandlordSnow and IceBuilding MaintenanceAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityTenant Responsibility
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saber v. 69th Tenants Corp.

The plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court's denial of his motion to set aside a jury verdict concerning personal injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1) against 69th Tenants Corp. The jury had found a violation of the Labor Law but no proximate cause for the plaintiff's injuries, stemming from an incident where he fell from a wobbling ladder while removing a mirror from a ceiling. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that any defect in the ladder was not the proximate cause of the accident. However, the appellate court found that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on Labor Law § 240 (1) as it applies to falling objects, as the mirror's dislodging contributed to the fall. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, the complaint reinstated against 69th Tenants Corp., and the matter is remitted for a new trial on the issue of liability based on the falling object theory.

Personal InjuryLabor Law 240(1)Falling ObjectJury VerdictProximate CauseAppellate ReviewNew TrialLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityWorker Safety
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Nenadovic v. P.T. Tenants Corp.

Plaintiff Stanimir Nenadovic, an employee of A-Tech, was injured when a 50-foot suspended scaffold, shared by three workers despite a two-person capacity, broke. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied Liro's motion to renew and ET. Tenants Corp.'s motion to renew, while granting Nenadovic partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Liberty Architectural Products Co., Inc. On appeal, all these orders were unanimously affirmed. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment motions by ET. Tenants Corp. and Prudential & Douglas Elliman regarding contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, breach of contract claims against Liro, Liberty, and A-Tech, and dismissal of Nenadovic's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence claims against them. The appellate court found plaintiff demonstrated prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), holding Liberty as a statutory agent, and upheld the denial of indemnification and dismissal motions due to remaining issues of negligence and prematurity.

Scaffold collapseLabor Law § 240(1) claimSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationCommon-law indemnificationBreach of contractStatutory agentPersonal injuryConstruction accidentWorker safety
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1938

Sea Gate Ass'n v. Sea Gate Tenants Ass'n

The Sea Gate Association, a private membership corporation in New York, sought a temporary injunction to prevent tenants from picketing within its private community. The association argued its right to enact and enforce rules against picketing to maintain the private residential character of Sea Gate and protect property values. The defendants, who were tenants protesting an increase in beach charges, contended that their picketing was lawful and that the streets within Sea Gate should be considered public, thus asserting violations of their constitutional rights. The court, however, emphasized the distinction between public and private rights, reaffirming the association's established authority to impose reasonable restrictions on its private property. Given that no labor dispute was involved and based on prior rulings confirming Sea Gate's private status, the court concluded that the rule against picketing was reasonable and had been breached. Consequently, the temporary injunction was granted against the defendants.

Private Property RightsTemporary InjunctionPicketing RegulationConstitutional RightsPrivate CommunityMembership CorporationProperty RegulationsTenant DisputeNew York LawBeach Access Fees
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Erickson

The court addressed an action brought by seven Latino tenants against defendant Sandra Erickson and the New York City Department of Housing, Preservation, and Development (HPD), alleging discrimination in the administration of the Neighborhood Entrepreneurs Program (NEP) and denial of participation in the Tenant Interim Lease (TIL) program. Plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and the Housing and Community Development Act (HCDA) were challenged by defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the Section 1983 claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the availability of state Article 78 proceedings. Claims under the HCDA (42 U.S.C. § 5309 and 24 C.F.R. §§ 6.1 and 91.1) were also dismissed, as the court found no private right of action under these provisions. Finally, the Section 1981 claim was dismissed due to insufficient pleading of intentional racial discrimination, and the remaining state law claims were declined supplemental jurisdiction.

Civil RightsHousing DiscriminationTenant RightsNeighborhood Entrepreneurs Program (NEP)Tenant Interim Lease (TIL) programSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Private Right of ActionArticle 78 Proceeding
References
30
Case No. 2026 NY Slip Op 00600, Index No. 153101/20, Appeal No. 5311, Case No. 2024-05946
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

Szczesiak v. Ery Tenant LLC

Plaintiff Mikolaj Szczesiak, an electrician, was injured after falling from a defective A-frame ladder while working on ceiling lights at a construction site. He moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1), arguing the ladder was inadequate and defective, leading to a gravity-related fall. The Supreme Court denied the motion, citing a question of fact regarding plaintiff's sole proximate cause due to live wires. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed, finding the ladder's defects and movement constituted a failure to provide proper protection, establishing a Labor Law § 240(1) violation. The court determined plaintiff's actions were comparative negligence, not the sole proximate cause, and that alternative safety devices would have prevented the fall, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary Judgment MotionLadder Fall InjuryConstruction Site SafetyElectric Shock AccidentDefective Equipment LiabilityAppellate ReversalGravity-Related RiskComparative Negligence DoctrineProximate Cause Analysis
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1954

Peters v. New York City Housing Authority

The court granted the motion concerning the continued occupancy rights of the tenants. This decision affects the ongoing residency of individuals currently living in the property. Furthermore, an associated appeal has been formally scheduled to be heard and argued before the Court of Appeals. This hearing is slated to occur during its session in May of 1954.

References
0
Showing 1-10 of 142 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