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. 146
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. McCrudden

This Memorandum and Order addresses two supervised release violations by Vincent McCrudden. Charge 4 alleged McCrudden associated with known felons, which the court found proven through letters and phone calls, determining that face-to-face contact is not a prerequisite for association. Charge 5 asserted McCrudden made materially false statements to his probation officer by denying contact with felons. The court ruled these falsehoods were material because they impaired the officer's ability to monitor and make informed decisions about McCrudden's compliance. Both charges were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

supervised release violationassociation with felonsfalse statementsmaterialityprobation officercriminal activitySecond Circuit precedentfederal law18 U.S.C. 1001preponderance of evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matos v. Aeronaves De Mexico, S.A.

Hector Matos sued his former employer, Aeronaves De Mexico, S.A., and his union, District 146 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, alleging wrongful discharge and breach of the duty of fair representation, respectively. Matos was terminated for insubordination after refusing to perform cashier duties, arguing a lack of proper training. The union negotiated Matos's return to work on the condition that his grievance hearing would be final and binding, thereby waiving arbitration. Matos contended he was unaware of this crucial agreement. The court found no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union in handling Matos's grievance, noting the benefits he received from the negotiated settlement. Consequently, as the prerequisite breach of the duty of fair representation was not established, Matos's claim against Aeronaves for wrongful discharge was also dismissed. The judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims.

Wrongful DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementInsubordinationAirline IndustryRailway Labor ActGrievance ProcedureWaiver of ArbitrationFinal and Binding DecisionUnion Discretion
References
16
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04349 [196 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2021

Membrives v. HHC TRS FP Portfolio, LLC

This class action was initiated by Pedro Membrives and others against HHC TRS FP Portfolio, LLC, and related entities, alleging violations of Labor Law article 6, specifically concerning sections 196-d, 12 NYCRR 146-2.18, and 12 NYCRR 146-2.19. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants improperly retained administrative fees from catered events without adequately disclosing that these fees were not gratuities. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order by denying summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the Labor Law § 196-d claim, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiffs' employee status. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs concerning the violations of 12 NYCRR 146-2.18 and 146-2.19, as the defendants failed to rebut the presumption that the administrative fees were purported gratuities and did not provide proper disclosure.

Class ActionLabor LawWage and HourGratuityAdministrative FeeEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNYCRRHotel Industry
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiss v. Tri-State Consumer Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning the amount of supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage available under an insurance policy issued by Tri-State Consumer Insurance Company. The plaintiffs, daughters and administrators of the estates of Rifka and Anton Goldenberg who died in a car accident, sought $400,000 in SUM coverage. Tri-State contended the coverage was limited to $145,000, arguing that payments from the tortfeasor's insurer ($100,000) and a Dram Shop recovery ($255,000) reduced the $500,000 policy limit. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' motion for $400,000 in coverage and denied Tri-State's cross-motion. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the Dram Shop recovery, as damages from sources other than motor vehicle liability insurance, correctly reduced the SUM endorsement, thus limiting the available coverage to $145,000.

Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured MotoristSUM CoverageInsurance Policy InterpretationDram Shop ActWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance LawContract LawAutomobile Insurance
References
8
Case No. 145 AD3d 926
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Rocha v. GRT Construction of New York

Plaintiff Vitor Rocha was allegedly injured after falling into a hole in the basement of a building owned by 234 West 16th Street Owners Corp. and managed by Merlot Management, LLC. He was employed by Faleiro Moving and Ricardo Faleiro. DJM Contracting Services Corp. was the general contractor, which subcontracted with Deep Water Group, Inc., who in turn engaged GRT Construction of New York. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Deep Water Group on a cross-claim for conditional common-law indemnification against GRT, and to DJM dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. It also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to serve an amended bill of particulars. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these parts of the order. It denied summary judgment to Deep Water Group and DJM, finding that DJM failed to show it lacked control or notice of the dangerous condition, and Deep failed to establish purely vicarious liability. The court also granted plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their bill of particulars.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentIndemnificationBill of ParticularsAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
19
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00567 [146 AD3d 697]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2017

Berhe v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.

Defendants successfully argued that plaintiff was their special employee, showing they controlled and directed his work. The general manager of the catering facility requested the plaintiff by name from a temporary agency, had the authority to dismiss him, and supplied his uniform. This manager also meticulously planned events, assigned specific duties to servers including the plaintiff, and managed their schedules and break times. The manager's presence at events ensured adherence to plans and proper service, demonstrating direct oversight. The court found that the plaintiff's experience did not negate the defendants' control over his work, thereby affirming the dismissal of the complaint.

special employee doctrinesummary judgmentvicarious liabilityemployer controltemporary agency workersappellate affirmationlabor lawprima facie showingfactual issuecatering industry
References
3
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08317 [145 AD3d 506]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2016

Burgos v. Premiere Properties, Inc.

Joaquin Burgos, a building porter, sustained injuries after tripping over a tool bag on a stairway. He sued Premiere Properties, Inc., the building management company, alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court denied Premiere's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial. The court found issues of fact regarding Premiere's potential liability as a statutory agent under Labor Law § 200 due to its extensive control over the construction site, as well as whether Premiere had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) were deemed abandoned.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 200Statutory AgentSummary Judgment DenialTrip and FallSafe Place to WorkManagement Company LiabilityAppellate Affirmation
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00002 [146 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2017

Anderson v. MSG Holdings, L.P.

Plaintiff, an iron worker, fell from a concrete panel while installing stadium seating at Madison Square Garden, suffering injuries. He alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), claiming he was not provided with proper fall protection. Defendants argued plaintiff was the sole proximate cause for not tying off his harness, despite being instructed to comply with OSHA subpart M. The court found that plaintiff was not provided an appropriate tie-off point, as the only available options were below his feet, which is inconsistent with OSHA regulations. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, granting plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability for both Labor Law claims, as plaintiff's failure to use an inadequate tie-off point could not be the sole proximate cause.

Fall ProtectionLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.16(b)Construction Site SafetySummary Judgment MotionProximate Cause DefenseOSHA ComplianceIronworker InjuryNew York Appellate Division
References
11
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00099 [146 AD3d 466]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Erkan v. McDonald's Corp.

Plaintiff Huseyin Erkan was injured when he fell from an unsecured ladder while installing tiles for a McDonald's restaurant, subsequently filing a lawsuit against McDonald's Corporation and Custom Commercial Construction Corp. alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing prematurity. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the defendants failed to present admissible evidence to create a material issue of fact. It emphasized that unverified documents and unsworn statements were insufficient to oppose summary judgment, affirming that the owner or contractor's failure to provide proper protection leads to absolute liability unless the worker's actions were the sole proximate cause.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityUnsecured LadderConstruction AccidentPremature MotionEvidentiary ProofUnverified RecordsSole Proximate CauseAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc.

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 27 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