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

Rosen v. McGuire & Bennett, Inc.

A construction laborer suffered a back injury while unloading sheetrock at a Cornell University construction site, alleging that the general contractor, McQuire & Bennett, Inc., and Cornell University violated Labor Law § 241 (6) by failing to provide adequate protection from hazards. The plaintiff attributed the injury to unsafe unloading methodology and co-worker actions. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on this claim. On appeal, the court reversed, finding no specific implementing regulation under Labor Law § 241 (6) that applied to the activity, and noted that defendants demonstrated the manual unloading method was customary and safe apart from deliberate misdeeds. Consequently, the appellate court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Construction accidentLabor Law 241(6)Summary judgment reversalWorkplace injuryManual handlingRegulatory complianceCo-worker negligenceAppellate DivisionNew York State lawCornell University
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lazo v. Mak's Trading Co.

The plaintiff, a tractor-trailer operator, delivered rice to the defendant, a New York City wholesale grocer. The defendant hired three men to unload the trailer, one of whom injured the plaintiff during an altercation. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the defendant did not exercise sufficient control over the day laborers to establish vicarious liability. The decision highlighted that the unloaders worked at their convenience, were not on payroll, and received a single cash payment. Additionally, the court found no duty for the defendant to conduct background checks for this 'as-needed' task.

vicarious liabilityindependent contractorday laborerspersonal injuryemployer liabilityduty to inquireworker controlnegligenceAppellate Division
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01347
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2021

Treacy v. Inspired Event Productions, LLC

Peter Treacy, a Teamsters' Union laborer, was injured on a loading dock when a crate fell on him while unloading materials for an event. He subsequently filed claims against multiple defendants under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Treacy's claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Treacy was not a covered worker under the Labor Law as his duties were limited to unloading materials on a permanent loading dock and he was not involved in the actual construction being performed at the site.

Worker injuryloading docksummary judgmentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241(6)construction workerscope of employmentappellate reviewTeamsters' Unionpremises liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walton v. Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Co.

Plaintiff William Walton was injured in January 1993 when a levelator malfunctioned while he was unloading a truck during his employment. He filed a no-fault claim with his insurer, which was denied on the grounds that the injury did not arise from the vehicle's inherent nature, despite his argument that it occurred during "loading and unloading." Walton also contended that the insurer's denial was untimely, precluding them from denying benefits. The court denied Walton's motion for summary judgment and granted the insurer's cross-motion, ruling that the injury was caused by the levelator, not the vehicle's operation or an act related to the loading process. Furthermore, the court found that untimely denial does not create coverage where none exists under the policy.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault LawInsurance LawLoading and UnloadingAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryFirst-Party BenefitsCoverage DenialLevelator MalfunctionWorkers' Compensation Eligibility
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. Fred Alvaro Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee, was injured while unloading building supplies at a construction site owned by the defendant. The injury occurred during manual removal of materials after a hydraulic device malfunctioned, allegedly under the direction of the defendant's representative. Plaintiff sued alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claims, reasoning that construction activity was absent on the specific lot. This appellate court reversed, emphasizing a flexible interpretation of 'work site' under Labor Law. It concluded that unloading materials for imminent use in ongoing construction falls within the statutes' scope, making summary judgment inappropriate.

Construction site injuryLabor Law liabilitySummary judgment appealWork site scopeHydraulic device accidentManual unloading injuryNondelegable dutyAppellate DivisionBuilding materials deliveryImminent construction use
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1994

Zavesky v. DeCato Bros.

The plaintiff, William Zavesky, sustained personal injuries after falling from a bundle of lumber while unloading materials for a modular home kit at the defendants' property in Patchogue, New York. Zavesky alleged that defendants Alex and Linda Pearson violated Labor Law § 200 by failing to provide a safe workplace. The Supreme Court initially denied the Pearsons' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the landowners had no actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and exercised no supervisory control over the unloading operation. Consequently, the summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint and cross claims based on Labor Law § 200 was granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLandowner LiabilitySafe WorkplaceConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionLabor LawPremises LiabilitySupervisory ControlWorkers' Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fontaine v. Juniper Associates

This decision addresses a personal injury claim by a plaintiff who was struck by falling wood while unloading a flatbed truck. The court determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to the falling object hazard, citing the absence of adequate safety devices during unloading. It also clarified that 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (2) covers materials placed or stored near an edge, posing a falling risk. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and ordinary negligence were dismissed due to the defendants' lack of supervisory control over the work. Consequently, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was granted against two defendants, while Hall-Wollford Tank Co. was absolved of liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardFalling objectsSummary judgmentFlatbed truckUnloading operationConstruction siteWorkplace safetyNegligencePremises owner liability
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delano v. United States

Plaintiff Daniel Delano sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained on October 26, 2005, while unloading an overloaded mail container at the Dunkirk Post Office. The court found that the United States Postal Service (USPS) breached its duty of care by failing to address a dangerous condition despite actual notice and repeated complaints, which proximately caused Delano's disc herniation and subsequent re-injury. However, Delano was found 10% comparatively negligent for not taking available ameliorative measures such as partially unloading the container or requesting a split load. The court awarded Delano $103,625 for lost past wages, $526,489 for lost future wages, and $150,000 for pain and suffering, all subject to a 10% reduction for comparative negligence and a $70,200 reduction for workers' compensation buyout. A workers' compensation lien of $146,821.50 was also acknowledged.

Federal Tort Claims ActNegligencePersonal InjuryBack InjuryDisc HerniationMicrodiscectomyWorkers' CompensationComparative NegligenceLost WagesPain and Suffering
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lechic v. Compania Peruana De Vapores

A longshoreman (plaintiff), employed by Universal Marine Services, Inc., sustained injuries while unloading coffee beans from a vessel owned by the defendant. The injury occurred due to the plaintiff slipping on loose coffee beans, which were a common byproduct of the unloading process using loading hooks. Customarily, the stevedore, Universal, was responsible for hiring coopers to clean up such spills. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting non-liability under § 5(b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Citing precedent from cases like Scindia Steam and Evans, the court affirmed that a shipowner is generally not liable for dangerous conditions arising from stevedore operations unless specific exceptions apply, such as a duty to intervene due to malfunctioning ship's gear or clear notice with anticipation of unavoidable danger. Finding no evidence of such exceptions and noting the stevedore's responsibility for cleanup, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint.

Longshoreman InjuryVessel Owner NegligenceLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentStevedore ResponsibilityCargo Operations SafetyDuty to InspectDangerous ConditionCoffee Beans SpillFederal Court
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curley v. Gateway Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained injuries while unloading pipes at a construction site due to the absence of heavy equipment and the use of a makeshift ramp. He initiated an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence against the site owner, general contractor, and subcontractors. The general contractor and a subcontractor filed third-party complaints against plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, dismissed other claims, and denied the employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaints. On appeal, the court affirmed plaintiff's partial summary judgment, affirmed the dismissals of Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, and affirmed indemnification rulings. Crucially, the court reversed the denial of the employer's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaints against them, finding they did not supervise or control the unloading and lacked notice of the dangerous condition.

Workplace accidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentIndemnificationConstruction siteUnloading pipeElevation-related riskProximate causeAppellate reviewThird-party complaint
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 78 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