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. 2022 NY Slip Op 03777 [206 AD3d 1175]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Matter of Anthony v. AB HILL Enters., LLC

Sandra Anthony filed a workers' compensation claim after injuring her wrist at a construction site, naming AB Hill Enterprises, LLC as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an employer-employee relationship, ruled AB Hill liable, and, due to AB Hill's lack of coverage, held Dani's Builders responsible as the general contractor. A penalty was also imposed on AB Hill for failing to secure insurance. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, prompting AB Hill's appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that AB Hill was a subcontractor and employer under the Construction Industry Fair Play Act, and thus properly assessed a penalty for lack of workers' compensation coverage.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstruction Industry Fair Play ActSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance CoverageStatutory PresumptionIndependent ContractorAppellate ReviewPenalty AssessmentDrywall Injury
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01023 [158 AD3d 487]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2018

Licata v. AB Green Gansevoort, LLC

This case involves plaintiff Michael Licata, a carpenter, who sustained injuries when his foot became caught in an unmarked and uncovered hole amidst debris on a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an earlier Supreme Court order. The court denied summary judgment to the owner defendants (AB Green Gansevoort, LLC, Hotelsab, LLC, and Pavarini McGovern LLC) regarding Licata's Labor Law § 241(6) claim, finding a triable issue of fact as to whether strewn debris obscured the hazardous hole. Furthermore, Pavarini McGovern LLC's motion for summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims was also denied, as questions remained regarding their notice of the hazardous condition and site cleaning responsibilities. While common-law indemnification claims against contractors were dismissed due to lack of negligence, the court reinstated contractual indemnification claims against J.E.S. Plumbing & Heating Corp. and Orion Mechanical Systems, Inc., citing a broad indemnity clause not contingent on their negligence.

Labor LawConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationIndustrial CodeHazardous ConditionPremises LiabilityDuty to Provide Safe WorkplaceAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 529802
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Sandra Anthony

Claimant Sandra Anthony injured her right wrist while taping drywall at a construction site and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, naming AB Hill Enterprises, LLC as her employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, determining an employer-employee relationship existed and holding Dani's Builders, the general contractor, responsible for awards due to AB Hill's lack of coverage, also imposing a $5,000 penalty on AB Hill. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. AB Hill appealed, arguing it was not a "contractor" under the Construction Industry Fair Play Act and thus not obligated to maintain workers' compensation insurance. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported AB Hill's classification as a contractor and employer under the Act, and upheld the penalty.

construction industryworkers' compensation lawemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractor classificationstatutory presumptionConstruction Industry Fair Play Actsubcontractor liabilitypenalty assessmentinsurance requirementsAppellate Division decision
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GB v. New York City Department of Education

The Parents (GB and DB) on behalf of their son AB, who has autism and multiple medical conditions, sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the IDEA for failing to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2012-2013 school year. They sought reimbursement for AB's tuition at the private Rebecca School, where he was unilaterally placed. The district court found procedural violations by the DOE and a substantive deficiency in AB's Individualized Education Plan (IEP) regarding his medical needs. Specifically, the IEP failed to account for AB's seizure disorder and PANDAS, and the proposed public school placement (Horan) was inappropriate due to its lack of climate control. The court granted the Parents' motion for summary judgment and ordered the DOE to fully reimburse the tuition.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanTuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationAutism Spectrum DisorderSeizure DisorderPANDASSensory Processing DisorderClimate Control Accommodation
References
43
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03149 [238 AD3d 619]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Sarante v. Courtlandt Dev., LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning a construction worker's injury. Plaintiff Jose Sarante was injured when a chain block pulley system, used to hoist a steel beam, collapsed. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for Sarante on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the pulley system to be a failed safety device. It also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for defendants Courtlandt Development, LLC and AB Capstone Builders Corp. on their Labor Law claims and contractual indemnification claims against third-party defendant Gold Lion Steel, LLC, noting the right to indemnification had not vested. Gold Lion's motions for dismissal of third-party claims were denied due to lack of evidence regarding "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Finally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed as plaintiff decided not to pursue it.

Labor Law § 240(1)Falling ObjectSafety DeviceChain Block Pulley SystemContractual IndemnificationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave Injury
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00720 [202 AD3d 433]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Galeno v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Fidel Galeno was injured in December 2012 after falling through a sidewalk shed roof while performing façade repairs on a building. The building was owned by Elk 22 Realty LLC, net leased to 20 West, and managed by ABS Partners Real Estate, LLC (collectively, the owner defendants). Everest Scaffolding, Inc. constructed the sidewalk shed, and Schnelbacher-Sendon Group, LLC (SSG) was hired for façade repairs, subcontracting work to Ramon Construction Corporation (Ramon), plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court denied conditional summary judgment for the owner defendants on contractual indemnification against SSG and Ramon, and granted SSG's and Ramon's motions for summary judgment dismissing contractual indemnification and common-law indemnification/contribution claims. The Supreme Court also denied Everest's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, granted dismissal of contractual indemnification claims against Everest by 20 West and ABS, and denied the owner defendants' cross-motion for conditional summary judgment against Everest. The Appellate Division modified the orders, denying SSG's, Ramon's, and Everest's motions to the extent they sought dismissal of 20 West and ABS's contractual indemnification claims against them, and otherwise affirmed. Issues of fact concerning proximate cause by Everest or Ramon remain, precluding dismissal of negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Everest. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against SSG were properly dismissed due to lack of negligence or supervision by SSG, while similar claims against Ramon were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySidewalk Shed AccidentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewProximate CauseConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cruz v. New Millennium Construction & Restoration Corp.

This case addresses whether an insurance carrier, Realm National Insurance Company, can retroactively cancel a workers' compensation policy under Insurance Law § 3105 (b) due to an employer's alleged misrepresentation. The employer, New Millennium Construction & Restoration Corporation, had a policy with Realm, and several of its employees or their spouses were injured or died in a scaffold collapse. Realm sought to void the policy ab initio, but the Workers' Compensation Board determined this was incompatible with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). The Court affirms the Board's decision, holding that the doctrine of void ab initio under Insurance Law § 3105 (b) cannot be applied to workers' compensation policies, as Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) mandates prospective cancellation, and public policy dictates strict compliance with cancellation procedures to protect injured employees.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy RescissionVoid Ab InitioMaterial MisrepresentationInsurance Law § 3105(b)Workers' Compensation Law § 54(5)Prospective CancellationRetroactive CancellationPublic PolicyCollateral Estoppel
References
31
Case No. CA 12-00679
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2012

NIAGARA FRONTIER TRANSIT METRO, SYSTEM, INC. v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT LOCAL UNION, 1342

Petitioner Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc. (Employer) appealed a Supreme Court decision denying its petition to stay arbitration. The Employer sought to annul an employee's employment due to non-disclosure of prior injuries in her application, claiming the employment was void ab initio and not subject to arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The employee, represented by Amalgamated Transit Local Union 1342 and Vincent G. Crehan (Respondents), had a workers' compensation claim that revealed undisclosed pre-existing cervical and lumbar spine injuries from a 2000 accident. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that the Employer did not have a common-law right to void employment ab initio. The court reasoned that disqualification for pre-existing injuries is discretionary and requires a 'meaningful opportunity to invoke the discretion of the decision maker' as a precondition to termination.

Workers' CompensationEmployment LawCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationMisrepresentationEmployment ApplicationVoid Ab InitioDisabilityAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reliance Insurance v. Certain Member Companies

Plaintiffs Reliance Insurance Company and New York Marine & General Insurance Company commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment to void a reinsurance binder ab initio. Defendants, Certain Member Companies of the Institute of London Underwriters, issued this binder covering plywood cargo. A cargo fire on the vessel SAMICK NORDIC destroyed the plywood, leading to a dispute over a $2,043,740.24 reinsurance coverage. Plaintiffs argued they were misled by brokers into believing the reassured was retaining a portion of the risk, a customary practice, whereas the London Underwriters had ceded 100% of the FPA risk. The court found that plaintiffs reasonably believed in retention and were indeed misled by the brokers' actions and omissions, constituting a violation of the duty of uberrimae fidei, or utmost good faith. Consequently, the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the reinsurance binder void ab initio and dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

Reinsurance disputeMarine insuranceDeclaratory judgmentUberrimae fideiBroker misleadingDuty to discloseFPA riskCargo insuranceContract void ab initioGood faith in insurance
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 23 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