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. ADJ8721311
Regular
Mar 25, 2014

JOSE ANDRES GAYTON HERNANDEZ vs. AL PAK LABOR, OLD REPUBLIC, Administered by CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant is Jose Andres Gayton Hernandez, and the defendants are AL PAK LABOR and Old Republic. A Petition for Removal was filed and subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition. No further action will be taken on this matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDismissedPetitionerApplicantDefendantAdministeredCannon Cochran Management ServicesOld RepublicAl Pak Labor
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. 06 Civ. 4880(PKC)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2009

Swarna v. Al-Awadi

Plaintiff Swarna Vishranthamma sued her former employers, Badar Al-Awadi and Halal Muhammad Al-Shaitan (Individual Defendants), and the State of Kuwait for slavery and slavery-like practices under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and for labor law violations. The Individual Defendants claimed diplomatic immunity, and Kuwait claimed sovereign immunity. The court ruled that the Individual Defendants' alleged actions were private acts, not official diplomatic functions, thus denying them residual diplomatic immunity for both ATCA and labor law claims. Conversely, Kuwait was granted sovereign immunity from the labor law claims, as it was not the direct employer, and its financial support to the diplomat was deemed a sovereign act. Kuwait also retained immunity from the ATCA claims, as the diplomat's tortious acts were outside the scope of employment, and claims of ratification/aiding and abetting involved discretionary governmental functions. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the Individual Defendants but denied it against the State of Kuwait, dismissing all claims against Kuwait for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Diplomatic ImmunitySovereign ImmunityAlien Tort Claims ActForced LaborInvoluntary ServitudeHuman TraffickingSexual SlaveryDefault JudgmentEmployment LawVicarious Liability
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06963
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v. New York State Dept. of Labor

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's prevailing wage law, Labor Law § 220 (3-e), concerning apprentice wages on public work projects. The International Union of Painters & Allied Trades and glazing contractors challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) policy which stipulates that apprentices must perform tasks within their registered trade classification to be paid apprentice rates. Plaintiffs argued this policy increased costs and limited on-the-job training for glazier apprentices whose curriculum included tasks classified as ironwork. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the DOL's interpretation as rational. The Court reasoned that the statute's language was ambiguous, and the DOL's policy prevented employers from using apprentices as cheap labor outside their specific trade, thereby ensuring proper training and maintaining construction standards.

Prevailing Wage LawApprentice WagesPublic Work ProjectsGlazier ApprenticesIronworker TasksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceLabor Law § 220Trade ClassificationWorkforce Development
References
17
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02620
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Grigoryan v. 108 Chambers St. Owner, LLC

The plaintiffs, Vitaliy Grigoryan et al., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied their motion for summary judgment on liability against defendants 108 Chambers Street Owner, LLC and Ross & Associates, LLC under Labor Law § 240 (1). The case involved plaintiff Vitaliy Grigoryan sustaining injuries when a 300-500+ pound unsecured fire pump fell on his leg. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated because the heavy fire pump, capable of generating significant force, should have been secured against falling. They further clarified that it was irrelevant whether the object related to the plaintiff's direct work and that the hazard of the unsecured pump toppling was a foreseeable harm requiring protection.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentGravity Related InjuryUnsecured ObjectConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewLiabilityFalling ObjectForeseeability
References
7
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06041
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2014

Abelleira v. City of New York

The plaintiffs, Fernando Abelleira et al., appealed an order denying their cross motion for summary judgment on liability for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The injured plaintiff, a construction foreman, was hurt when a defective pneumatic pipe plug exploded during a pressure test. The Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding the plaintiffs failed to show the defendants had supervisory control over the work or actual/constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court also properly denied and dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the cited Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-9.2 (a) and (b) (1)) were either inapplicable or general safety standards. The defendants' cross-appeal was withdrawn, and the Appellate Division affirmed the order.

Construction accidentPersonal injurySummary judgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial CodeCommon-law negligencePremises liabilitySupervisory controlAppellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01884 [159 AD3d 544]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2018

Hobbs v. MTA Capital Constr.

Plaintiffs, Joseph Hobbs et al., appealed an order denying their motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The injured plaintiff testified he fell from a fixed, job-made access ladder when a rung splintered, causing him to fall. This testimony established a prima facie case for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, defendants presented opposing evidence through worker affidavits, claiming the ladder rungs were undamaged and that the injured plaintiff initially reported missing a handhold. These conflicting accounts created a triable issue of fact regarding the cause of the accident. Consequently, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Law ClaimSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentConflicting TestimonyTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyWorker TestimonyFall from Height
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,432 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