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

Plumbing Industry Board, Plumbing Local Union No. 1 v. L & L Masons, Inc.

Plaintiff Plumbing Industry Board (PIB) sued E.W. Howell and American Home Assurance Construction Co., Inc., seeking unpaid fringe benefit contributions under New York's Lien Law and as a third-party beneficiary to a contract. The defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted PIB's state law claims and moved for summary judgment. PIB cross-moved for a remand to state court. The court determined that ERISA preempted both New York Lien Law § 5 and PIB's common law contract claims, ruling that the Lien Law created an obligation not permitted under ERISA and the contract claim created a new theory of recovery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied PIB's motion to remand, and dismissed all claims.

ERISA pre-emptionNew York Lien LawFringe benefit contributionsSummary judgmentThird-party beneficiary contractCollective bargaining agreementEmployee benefit planSurety bondSubcontractor defaultFederal jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1997

Sidor v. Zuhoski

This case involves appeals from an order concerning two related actions: one for personal injuries (Action No. 1) and another for wrongful death (Action No. 2). Joseph and Gregory Zuhoski appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1. Separately, Colin Van Tuyl, as Executor of the Estate of Janet A. Van Tuyl, and Brianna and Colin Van Tuyl, individually, appealed both the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion and the granting of Martin Sidor & Sons, Inc.'s motion to amend its answer in Action No. 2. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, noting the trial court's sound discretion in granting leave to amend pleadings, particularly when the failure to deny allegations was an inadvertent mistake. Furthermore, the court found an issue of fact regarding Gregory Zuhoski's employment status at the time of the accident, which justified the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppealPleading AmendmentDiscretion of Trial CourtWorkers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentAppellate DivisionSuffolk County Litigation
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02783
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

Cantalupo v. Arco Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Paul Cantalupo, an injured worker, and his wife, suing derivatively, commenced a personal injury action against Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., and others. Cantalupo was injured while performing air conditioning services when an unsecured 500-pound condenser head fell on his leg. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Chase's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment to Chase for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, thereby dismissing it. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and common-law negligence claims, citing triable issues of fact regarding whether Cantalupo was engaged in repair work, whether Chase had notice of a dangerous condition, and whether Cantalupo was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityRoutine Maintenance
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp.

The Plaintiffs, comprising ERISA funds and their trustees, sued Delta Plumbing and Heating Corporation for delinquent fringe benefits and later added New York Surety Company as a defendant on its bond. Following Delta's bankruptcy, New York Surety became the sole defendant and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant argued that a surety is not an 'employer' under ERISA and that the court lacked pendent party jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the 'plain meaning' of ERISA's definition of 'employer' could extend to a surety that acts in the interest of an employer by guaranteeing contributions. Furthermore, the court found that under the legal framework applicable to this pre-1990 action, ERISA's statutory language did not confer pendent party jurisdiction.

ERISA EnforcementSurety LiabilityDelinquent ContributionsSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionCollective BargainingMultiemployer Pension PlansEmployee Benefits SecurityFederal Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Koren v. Zazo

David Koren, plaintiff in Action No. 2, sued Vivaldi, Inc. following a motor vehicle accident, alleging John Zazo, the driver, was a Vivaldi employee acting within the scope of his employment. Vivaldi moved for summary judgment, asserting Zazo was an independent contractor. Vivaldi provided evidence of Zazo's compensation by commission, self-sourced clients, lack of expenses or benefits, and 1099 tax form issuance, consistent with independent contractor status. The court found this evidence sufficient to establish Zazo as an independent contractor, thereby absolving Vivaldi of liability for his negligent acts. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying summary judgment to Vivaldi and third-party defendant Ford Motor Credit Company was reversed, leading to the dismissal of both the complaint and third-party complaint in Action No. 2.

Independent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentMotor Vehicle AccidentVicarious LiabilityNegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionNew York Law1099 Tax Form
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2015

Callari v. Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc.

This case originated from allegations by Michael Callari that Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc. (BPS), Richard Blackman, and John Does # 1-10 unlawfully withheld overtime compensation from its inside sales representatives and assistant branch managers, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiff sought to certify a collective action under FLSA § 216(b) and a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. While a Magistrate Judge conditionally certified the FLSA collective action, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification under Rule 23. The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements, primarily because the job duties varied significantly across BPS's twenty branches, and there was no unified company-wide policy regarding overtime exemption for all proposed class members.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime PayFLSA ExemptionNYLL ViolationClass CertificationCollective ActionRule 23Executive ExemptionEmployee MisclassificationSales Representatives
References
42
Case No. CA 13-00513
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2014

DRYDEN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOESSL, STANLEY

Plaintiff Dryden Mutual Insurance Company initiated an action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Stanley Goessl in an underlying tort action, which arose from a fire during plumbing work. Defendants AP Daino & Plumbing, Inc. and its insurer, The Main Street America Group, also denied coverage for Goessl. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Dryden Mutual and against Main Street America Group. However, the Appellate Division reversed this judgment, declaring that Dryden Mutual is obligated to defend and indemnify Goessl and reimburse his attorney's fees, based on his status as a sole proprietor insured by them. Conversely, The Main Street America Group was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Goessl, as he was deemed an independent contractor, not an employee of AP Daino, according to their policy's plain meaning and their business arrangement. Sconiers, J., dissented, arguing that the trial court's finding of Goessl as an employee should have been upheld.

Insurance coverage disputeBusiness liabilityIndependent contractor classificationEmployee statusDuty to indemnifyDuty to defendSubcontracting agreementDeclaratory judgment actionAppellate review of judgmentContract interpretation
References
22
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00890
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Sanchez v. BBL Constr. Servs., LLC

Plaintiff Jose W. Sanchez, an employee of D&J Concrete Corp., allegedly sustained injuries at a construction site in Rockland County after tripping over a protruding drain pipe while pouring concrete. He initiated a personal injury action against the property owners (CRH Realty IX, LLC, and Crystal Run Healthcare, LLP), the general contractor (BBL Construction Services, LLC), and the plumbing subcontractor (Joe Lombardo Plumbing & Heating of Rockland, Inc.), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6). The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment submitted by the defendants and third-party defendant D&J, prompting an appeal. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order. It ruled that the defendants successfully demonstrated that the alleged dangerous condition was open and obvious, not inherently dangerous, and that they lacked authority to supervise the plaintiff's work, thereby dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Additionally, the court found the Industrial Code provision (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (2) cited for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim inapplicable, as the pipe was considered an integral and permanent part of the ongoing construction. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment dismissing all causes of action were granted.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentCommon Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeOpen and Obvious HazardInherently Dangerous ConditionSupervisory Authority
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 8,108 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