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. 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

Koylum, Inc. v. Peksen Realty Corp.

This action was initiated by Koylum, Inc. and additional party defendants Adnan Kiriscioglu and Erol Bayraktar (Tenants) against Peksen Realty Corp. and 1677 Ridge Realty Corp. (Landlord) alleging violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. Following previous decisions, the Court addressed whether New York or Federal law applies to prejudgment interest on a counterclaim for breach of contract, the personal liability of Adnan Kiriscioglu and Erol Bayraktar, and an additional claim for 180 days of rent. The Court ruled that New York law governs the prejudgment interest for the state law breach of contract counterclaim, calculated from October 18, 2000. It affirmed the personal liability of Kiriscioglu and Bayraktar due to personal guarantees. The Landlord's request for an additional $68,361 for 180 days after the Tenants vacated the premises was denied. Ultimately, the Court ordered a money judgment of $373,438.54 in favor of 1677 Ridge Road Realty Corp. against Koylum, Inc., Adnan Kiriscioglu, and Erol Bayraktar, dismissing the Tenants' complaint.

Prejudgment InterestNew York LawFederal LawPetroleum Marketing Practices ActBreach of ContractHoldover TenantLiquidated DamagesPersonal GuaranteeState Law CounterclaimFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fuentes v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision dated November 15, 2006. The Board had transferred liability for a claimant's 1998 work-related back injury to the Special Fund, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Special Fund argued that certain payments made to the claimant in late 2005, between November 30 and December 17, were advance payments of compensation, which would preclude the transfer of liability. However, the Board found that these payments were charged to the claimant's accumulated sick leave and did not constitute advance payments of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that the sick leave payments did not prevent the transfer of liability to the Special Fund because they were not made voluntarily in recognition of employer liability, and thus, the criteria for transferring liability to the Special Fund were met.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law Section 25-aAdvance Payments of CompensationSick Leave PlanLiability TransferStale ClaimApplication to Reopen ClaimWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryTreating Physician Report
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Liability Ins. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co.

This diversity action involves an insurance dispute between plaintiffs United States Liability Insurance Co. (U.S. Liability) and Mobile Air Transport, Inc., and defendant Mountain Valley Indemnity Co. The conflict arose from a fatal truck accident involving a Mobile Air employee driving a truck leased from Leroy Holding Company, Inc. After an underlying personal injury action settled, U.S. Liability and Mountain Valley each paid $225,000 towards the remaining $450,000 portion of the settlement. The core disagreement is whether the Truck Lease Agreement, which designates Mobile Air's insurance as primary, or the specific 'other insurance' clauses within U.S. Liability's and Mountain Valley's respective policies, which would make Mountain Valley's coverage primary, should govern. Applying New York law, the court ruled that the insurance policy provisions take precedence over the lease agreement. Consequently, U.S. Liability's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Mountain Valley's cross-motion was denied, holding Mountain Valley liable for the entire $450,000 in dispute.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs Excess CoverageTruck Lease AgreementInsurance Policy InterpretationSummary JudgmentNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionIndemnificationSubrogationAutomobile Accident
References
5
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

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,800 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