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. 2014 NY Slip Op 05494 [119 AD3d 486]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2014

DiVetri v. ABM Janitorial Service, Inc.

Anna DiVetri slipped and fell on a wet marble lobby floor after tracking in water from an adjacent sidewalk being cleaned by ABM Janitorial Service, Inc. She sustained injuries and filed a complaint. The defendants, including the building owner, managing agent, and cleaning contractor, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found genuine issues of fact existed regarding whether the defendants created a dangerous condition by failing to take precautions against tracked-in water during sidewalk cleaning. Furthermore, it ruled that ABM, as an outside contractor, could owe a duty of care to the plaintiff despite the lack of a direct contract, under the "force or instrument of harm" exception.

premises liabilityslip and fallsummary judgmentduty of careindependent contractor liabilitydangerous conditiontracked-in waterbuilding maintenanceproperty owner liabilitymanaging agent liability
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04946
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2022

Breland-Marrow v. RXR Realty, LLC

Debra Breland-Marrow and her husband sued RXR Realty, LLC and BEWCO Corporation for personal injuries after Breland-Marrow slipped on ice in their building. RXR and BEWCO initiated a third-party action against their service contractor, ABM Janitorial Service Northeast, Inc., for indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint, finding no evidence that RXR and BEWCO created or had notice of the hazardous condition, and denied the third-party claims as academic. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint but reversed the Supreme Court's decision on the third-party claims, denying summary judgment to RXR and BEWCO on those claims on the merits, citing insufficient proof of ABM's negligence or failure to procure insurance.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceAppellate ReviewActual NoticeConstructive Notice
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01290 [180 AD3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2020

Reyes v. Roman Catholic Church of St. Raymond

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The case involved plaintiff Felipe Reyes, a special employee of The Roman Catholic Church of St. Raymond, whose Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed based on Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6). The court also denied summary judgment on St. Raymond's third-party contractual indemnification claim against ABM Janitorial Services-Northeast, Inc., due to an unresolved issue of fact regarding ABM's negligence. The decision concluded that Reyes's claim against St. Raymond was barred due to his special employee status.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6)Contractual IndemnificationThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewWorkplace InjuryPremises LiabilityNegligence
References
2
Case No. ADJ8063847, ADJ6671846
Regular
Aug 11, 2017

JUAN IBARRA vs. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, ESIS

The defendant, ABM Janitorial Services, sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision finding cumulative trauma injury resulting in chronic myelogenous leukemia. While the petition was pending, the parties reached a proposed settlement agreement. Consequently, the WCAB granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the original decision, and returned the case to the trial level. The WCJ will now consider the proposed settlement, and if not approved, the original decision may be reinstated.

Petition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardCumulative Trauma InjuryChronic Myelogenous LeukemiaCompromise and ReleaseWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ7144891, ADJ8066648
Regular
Apr 17, 2013

VILMA TORRES vs. ABM INDUSTRIES, INC.; ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, Inc.

This case involves Vilma Torres filing a workers' compensation claim against ABM Industries, Inc. and ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board affirmed the January 23, 2013 decision but amended it to include injury to the applicant's low back in a related case, ADJ8066648.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOpinion and OrderGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationAmended DecisionFindings of FactLow Back InjuryADJ7144891
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. ADJ8361822
Regular
Aug 03, 2015

LORENA CHAVEZ vs. ABM JANITORIAL SERVICES, ESIS

This case concerns ABC Interpreting, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision awarding them $180.00 for interpreter services. ABC Interpreting sought $250.00, claiming entitlement to the pre-established market rate, plus interest and penalties for late payment. The Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's award because ABC Interpreting failed to provide adequate documentation of market rate, their qualifications as an interpreter, and because Labor Code section 5811 does not authorize penalties and interest. The Board found the $180.00 award consistent with the reasonable and customary rate for interpreter services in the applicable geographic area.

Petition for ReconsiderationInterpreter FeesLabor Code Section 5811Market RateSuperior Court Fee ScheduleQualified InterpreterDeposition ServicesUntimely PaymentInterest and PenaltyAmended Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 7,144 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