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

Beastie Boys v. Monster Energy Co.

This case involves copyright infringement and Lanham Act claims by the hip-hop group Beastie Boys against Monster Energy Company for unauthorized use of a remix containing Beastie Boys songs in a promotional video. Monster, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against DJ Zach Sciacca (Z-Trip), who created the remix with the Beastie Boys' permission and furnished it to Monster. Monster alleged Z-Trip authorized unrestricted use of the remix and committed fraud by misrepresenting his authority to license the Beastie Boys' music. Z-Trip moved for summary judgment on Monster's claims. The Court granted Z-Trip's motion, finding no valid contract between Monster and Z-Trip due to lack of offer, acceptance, consideration, and clear terms, and also dismissed the fraud claim due to Monster's unreasonable reliance and lack of evidence of Z-Trip's fraudulent intent.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActNew York Civil Rights LawThird-Party ComplaintSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractFraudMisrepresentationMusic LicensingDJ Z-Trip
References
21
Case No. ADJ4225434 (LAO0864755)
Regular
Dec 10, 2008

CHING YEN vs. C & C INTERNATIONAL GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant injured in a car accident while traveling to a wedding with her employer. The applicant claimed her participation in the trip was a reasonable expectancy of her employment as an account assistant, which involved driving and travel. The Board denied reconsideration of the workers' compensation judge's finding that the injury was industrial, determining the applicant's subjective belief of being required to attend the trip was objectively reasonable given her job duties and her employer's direction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryReasonable ExpectancyOff-duty recreational activitySubjective beliefObjectively reasonableMotor vehicle accidentAccount assistantCommercial travelSpecial mission
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wright v. General Electric Co.

The claimant appealed decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the death of her husband, an employee of General Electric Company, who died in an automobile accident during a trip with both business and personal purposes. The Board found the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, awarding death benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence and precedent that a dual-purpose trip does not negate an employment connection. The court also referenced Workers’ Compensation Law, § 118, noting corroborating testimony and permission for travel.

Workers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentBusiness TravelPersonal TravelDeath BenefitsEmployment ScopeAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDual Purpose RuleInjury during Employment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1991

Claim of Altman v. Kazan Import Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, which determined that the claimant's death was work-related. The claimant, a handbag designer, died in a motorbike accident in Thailand during a business trip for Kazan Import Corporation. Her estate contested the decision, aiming to pursue civil liability against the company president, and questioned the credibility of the president's testimony regarding the business nature of the trip. The Board, however, credited the president's account, finding sufficient evidence to support its ruling. The appellate court upheld the Board’s decision, underscoring the Board's authority as the ultimate arbiter of credibility and its non-interference with factual disputes.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentBusiness TripAccidental DeathCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceThailand AccidentEmployer LiabilityTravel Accident
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00954 [147 AD3d 808]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Aragona v. State of New York

The claimant, a dock builder employed by Modern Continental Construction Co., Inc., was injured after tripping on a pad eye on a work barge. The incident occurred while he was carrying materials along a corridor created by lumber and construction material. The claimant filed a claim against the State of New York under Labor Law § 241 (6), alleging a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1). The Court of Claims found the State 70% at fault for the accident, entering an interlocutory judgment. The defendant appealed, but the Appellate Division affirmed the interlocutory judgment, concluding that the claimant tripped in a passageway and that the pad eye was not an integral part of the construction.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 241 (6)Tripping HazardIndustrial Code ViolationAppellate ReviewInterlocutory JudgmentComparative NegligenceWork BargeNondelegable Duty
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Melber v. 6333 Main Street, Inc.

Plaintiff, a carpenter working on stilts, tripped over electrical conduit and fell, sustaining injuries. He and his wife sued, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which a divided Appellate Division affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the accident did not involve a hazard contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1). The court clarified that this statute applies only to elevation-related risks, and tripping on conduit at ground level, even while on stilts, does not fall within its scope, as the stilts performed their intended function of elevating the worker.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related risksWorker injuryConstruction site accidentStiltsSummary judgmentAppellate reviewAbsolute liabilityStatutory interpretationHazard identification
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isola v. JWP Forest Electric Corp.

An iron worker was injured after tripping over an electrical conduit at a construction site, subsequently filing a complaint against the general contractor, Koren-Diresta Construction Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Koren-Diresta's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant and dismissing the complaint. The court determined there was no violation of specific Industrial Code regulations as the plaintiff was not in a passageway and the conduit was an integral part of the floor. Furthermore, no evidence indicated Koren-Diresta supervised the work, and the tripping hazard was deemed an open and obvious danger.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction Site InjuryTripping HazardElectrical ConduitGeneral Contractor LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial CodeOpen and Obvious DangerAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02189 [203 AD3d 643]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2022

Bazdaric v. Almah Partners LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Srecko Bazdaric had tripped on plastic sheeting while painting an escalator, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241(6) and Industrial Code sections 23-1.7(d) and (e)(1). The majority held that the plastic covering was "integral to the work" and therefore not a "foreign substance" or tripping hazard under the Industrial Code. The dissent criticized this interpretation, arguing it imperiled worker safety and that the material was dangerously unsuited for the task. This decision effectively dismissed the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim.

Slip and FallConstruction Site SafetyIndustrial Code ViolationsLabor Law § 241(6)Integral to the Work DefenseForeign SubstanceAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2007

Riley v. J.A. Jones Contracting, Inc.

The plaintiff, a bricklayer, was injured after tripping on a brick while working on an elevated scaffold. He was directed by his superintendent to rebuild a wall using salvaged bricks without clearing the scaffold of debris from the previously demolished wall. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant regarding alleged violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and (e) (2). On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the claim related to slippery conditions (23-1.7 (d)) but denied summary judgment regarding tripping hazards (23-1.7 (e) (2)), citing triable issues of fact.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law § 241 (6)12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)Summary JudgmentTripping HazardConstruction Site SafetyAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05631
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2023

Tompkins v. Turner Constr. Co.

The plaintiff, Thomas Tompkins, a carpenter, sustained injuries after tripping on a raised Masonite board while working on a construction project, leading him to file a personal injury action against Turner Construction Company and Conde Nast, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6). He moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, but the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied his motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to judgment by establishing that his injuries were proximately caused by a tripping hazard in a passageway. The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, leading to the granting of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial CodeTripping HazardAppellate DivisionWorkplace SafetyNondelegable DutyProximate Cause
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 217 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