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. ADJ7870189
Regular
Nov 09, 2018

ALDO RODRIGUEZ vs. ALADDIN CUSTOM POOLS, INC., IMPERIUM, administered by ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, SERGIO CHIQUETE, JUANA CHIQUETE, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE c/o FARMERS INSURANCE, SILVERIO QUIRARTE, uninsured, UNINSURED EMPLOYER BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case clarifies employer liability for an injured worker in the context of unlicensed contractors. The Appeals Board found applicant Aldo Rodriguez was solely employed by Silverio Quirarte, an unlicensed contractor, for work performed on May 15, 2010. Applicant did not meet the hours threshold to be considered an employee of the homeowners (Chiquetes) under Labor Code Section 3352(a)(8), thus excluding them as employers. Aladdin Custom Pools was also dismissed as applicant had no direct employment or remuneration from them.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundUEBTFemployer identityindustrial injuryright eye injuryleft eye injurypsyche injuryjackhammer accidentAladdin Custom PoolsSilverio Quirarte
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2009

Kilmetis v. Creative Pool & Spa, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Complete Construction Alternatives, Inc., sustained personal injuries on October 3, 2006, after falling from a scaffold while finishing siding on a garage roof. He initiated a personal injury action against Creative Pool and Spa, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and asserting Creative Pool was the general contractor. The Supreme Court of Nassau County denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court finding that Creative Pool was neither a general contractor nor an agent for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) concerning the plaintiff's work. This decision was based on evidence that Creative Pool did not supervise or control the plaintiff's work, provided no equipment, and was not present at the site on the accident date.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityAgent LiabilityAppellate ReviewNew York LawWorkplace Accident
References
12
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05313 [119 AD3d 758]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Perla v. Daytree Custom Builders, Inc.

Milton Perla and his wife initiated an action for personal injuries against Daytree Custom Builders, Inc. after Mr. Perla fell from a roof during employment and received Workers' Compensation benefits. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and sought discovery sanctions or to strike the defendant's Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant was an alter ego of Mr. Perla's employer, which could limit remedies to Workers' Compensation. Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate willful discovery non-compliance and lacked a good faith affirmation for the discovery dispute. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ProcedureRooftop FallEmployer LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tillman v. Triou's Custom Homes, Inc.

Charles Tillman, a truck driver for Phelps Cement Products, Inc., sustained a fractured leg after falling from his flatbed truck while unloading cement blocks at a construction site. He sued Triou’s Custom Homes, Inc. (general contractor) and Zurich Masonry, Inc. (subcontractor) alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted Tillman partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, but this court reversed that decision, concluding that a flatbed truck is not an elevated work surface for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Triou, finding specific Industrial Code violations applicable, but upheld the dismissal of the § 241 (6) claim against Zurich as they were not Triou's agent.

Construction accidentFall from heightFlatbed truckLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial CodeGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor liabilityVicarious liabilityCommon-law indemnification
References
15
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08502
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Eddy v. John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant, John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc., and denying the plaintiff, Mark Eddy's, cross-motion for summary judgment. The case involved a construction worker who was injured after falling from a moving pickup truck while sitting on an unsecured cast iron grate. The court ruled that the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the fall from the truck's tailgate was considered a usual and ordinary danger of a construction site, not an extraordinary elevation hazard. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's decision to ride in a hazardous position on the tailgate, despite being warned, constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby precluding any liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6).

Labor LawWorkplace AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseElevation HazardPickup TruckUnsecured LoadAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
42
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02968
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Kosinski v. Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Zbigniew Kosinski and his wife, commenced an action against defendants Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc. (BMCC), Concordia General Contracting, Inc. (Concordia), and Lynn DeGregorio, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Kosinski after falling from a ladder during carpentry work. The lawsuit alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified this order, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) due to triable issues of fact concerning Kosinski's potential misuse of the ladder. Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against homeowner Lynn DeGregorio, invoking the homeowner's exemption as she did not direct or control the work. However, the denial of summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim against Concordia was affirmed, as Concordia failed to prove lack of supervisory authority.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorStatutory Duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. v. Pross

This case concerns a breach of contract action for swimming pool construction. The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that one of the plaintiff corporations, Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., lacked the required Nassau County home improvement license. Plaintiffs, Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. and Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., both owned by Jairo Arango, operated together, with Best Quality holding the necessary license. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that denying payment would be an excessive penalty given that Best Quality was licensed, aligning with the rationale of Marraccini v Ryan. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint to include the licensing details for Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc.

Home Improvement LicenseCorporate LiabilityBreach of ContractMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintNassau County Administrative CodeCPLR 3015(e)Licensing RequirementsCorporate VeilSubstantial Compliance
References
8
Case No. ADJ1083447 (LAO 0872246)
Regular
Mar 04, 2010

FRANKLIN GONZALEZ vs. ARGENT CUSTOM FURNITURE, DCS, UNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUND, CUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLC, CHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant, Franklin Gonzalez, and defendants including Argent Custom Furniture and the Uninsured Employer's Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order denying reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in denying the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDARGENT CUSTOM FURNITUREUNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUNDCUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLCCHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANYADJ1083447LAO 0872246DENYING RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Smith argues that Labor Law § 196-d, which prohibits employers from demanding or accepting parts of employee gratuities, is inapplicable to disputes over how a common tip pool is shared among employees. The dissent contends that the statute's purpose is to prevent employers from retaining tips meant for employees, not to regulate the internal distribution of pooled tips. Drawing a distinction from federal law and referencing a similar California case, Jou Chau v Starbucks Corp., the judge concludes that extending the statute to tip pooling among employees unnecessarily complicates the law and creates avenues for excessive regulation and litigation, despite agreeing with the majority's outcome in favor of Starbucks.

tip poolingLabor Law § 196-dgratuitieswage disputesemployer responsibilityemployee rightsstatutory interpretationdissenting opinionNew York lawCalifornia Labor Code
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 324 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