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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1994

New York Air Brake Corp. v. General Signal Corp.

This case addresses a labor dispute concerning employee transfer rights between New York Air Brake Corporation and several unions (Local 761 and Local 761A), along with General Signal Corporation. Following an arbitration award that was not fully satisfactory to all parties, a settlement known as the 'Good Friday Agreement' was reached to modify and implement the award. Defendant Local 761 later objected to the enforcement of this agreement, raising questions about the court's jurisdiction and the parties' authority to settle. The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, finding that the parties had the legal capacity to enter into an oral settlement agreement, which was enforceable, and thus approved the Good Friday Agreement, denying the motions to confirm the original arbitration award or remand to the arbitrator.

Labor DisputeSettlement EnforcementArbitration ReviewCollective Bargaining AgreementContract LawFederal Court JurisdictionOral SettlementEmployee RightsUnion RepresentationGrievance Resolution
References
19
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1997

Sam v. Town of Rotterdam

Plaintiff Sien Sam, a brake technician, was injured on February 2, 1993, when a police vehicle owned by the defendant experienced brake failure at Salisbury Chevrolet, Inc. Sam's complaint alleged derivative liability of the defendant as the vehicle owner and negligence for failing to disclose the vehicle's dangerous braking system. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that objections to the technical form of a supporting deposition must be preserved at the trial level. Furthermore, the court found plaintiffs failed to present evidence identifying the cause of the brake failure or demonstrating the defendant's knowledge of the defect.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationEvidentiary RulesAffidavit RequirementVehicle NegligenceBrake FailureOwner LiabilityDuty to Warn
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 55 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