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. 2024 NYSlipOp 01535
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2024

Fuentes v. 257 Toppings Path, LLC

The injured plaintiff, Gregorio Fuentes, was working as a laborer on a new house construction when he fell 16 feet through an unguarded opening in the attic floor while spray-painting insulation. He and his wife sued the property owner, 257 Toppings Path, LLC, and the general contractor, A-H Construction, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability was initially denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order and granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on both Labor Law claims, finding that the defendants failed to provide proper safety devices for an elevation-related hazard and violated Industrial Code provision 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i). The Court emphasized that comparative negligence is not a defense to these specific Labor Law violations.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial CodeSummary judgmentLiabilityElevation-related hazardUnguarded openingComparative negligence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance

This case addresses whether an 'absolute pollution exclusion' in an insurance policy applies to indoor dissemination of paint or paint solvent fumes. Belt Painting Corp., the plaintiff, was sued by Joseph and Maria Cinquemani for injuries sustained from inhaling fumes during Belt's work. TIG Insurance Company, the defendant and Belt's insurer, denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion. The Supreme Court initially sided with TIG, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision. The Appellate Division held that the exclusion does not apply to cases where the 'environment,' as commonly understood, is unaffected by what could realistically be defined as 'pollution,' thus mandating TIG to defend and indemnify Belt.

Insurance LawPollution ExclusionAbsolute Pollution ExclusionContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyIndemnificationDeclaratory JudgmentIndoor Air ContaminationToxic FumesPaint Solvent
References
30
Case No. CV-24-1460
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Matter of Blake v. Niagara Wheatfield Cent. Sch. Dist.

The case concerns Bonnie C. Blake's appeal from an amended decision of the Workers' Compensation Board regarding her entitlement to benefits for a work injury sustained in 2000 (Claim No. 1). The Board had ruled that Blake was required to demonstrate an ongoing attachment to the labor market. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this part of the decision. The court determined that a 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) applies retroactively to Blake's claim, given she was classified with a permanent partial disability in 2011 while employed at preinjury wages and had no prior finding of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. This amendment obviates the need for ongoing labor market attachment. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentRetroactivityStatutory AmendmentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionClaim RemittalDue ProcessWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blake v. City of New York

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an action for damages brought by infant plaintiff Franklyn Blake and his mother Sandra Blake against the City of New York. The plaintiffs sought damages after a fire severely burned Franklyn, alleging the city failed to provide promised police protection following prior incidents. The dissenting judge argues that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered due to the improper admission of prejudicial hearsay testimony from a neighbor. This testimony, regarding police promises of protection, improperly bolstered the plaintiffs' claims, especially given the conflicting testimonies of the plaintiffs and police officers. The dissent highlights that this trial error, specifically the admission of incompetent evidence, warrants reversal.

Hearsay TestimonyPrejudicial EvidenceSpecial RelationshipMunicipal LiabilityPolice ProtectionTrial ErrorAppellate ReviewCPLR 4017Credibility of WitnessesDamages Action
References
2
Case No. CA 14-01267
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

CARR, DANIEL v. MCHUGH PAINTING CO., INC.

Plaintiffs Daniel and Susan Carr initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, sustained a back injury while installing a door from a scissor lift at a renovation site. The Supreme Court denied the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s, motion for summary judgment and partially granted plaintiffs' cross-motion under Labor Law § 240 (1), allowing an amendment for a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It granted McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s motion in part, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion in its entirety. The court determined that Daniel Carr's injury was not an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the proposed Industrial Code violation for Labor Law § 241 (6) lacked merit.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewScissor Lift AccidentElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationGeneral Contractor Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

Ribeiro v. Dynamic Painting Corp.

Raymundo Ribeiro, an employee of Wells Diversified Services, Inc., sustained injuries in October 1998 while sandblasting on the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge for a joint venture including Dynamic Painting Corporation and Romano Enterprises, Inc. Ribeiro and his spouse initiated legal action against these contractors, asserting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs sought summary judgment, while defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that Ribeiro was a 'special employee' of Dynamic, making the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions applicable. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' dismissal request. The Appellate Division affirmed both rulings, confirming the existence of a special employment relationship, thereby upholding the defendants' entitlement to summary judgment.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentScaffold AccidentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilityJoint VentureSandblasting
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2014

Carr v. McHugh Painting Co.

Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, suffered a back injury while installing a heavy door from a scissor lift at an elevated height during a renovation project, leading him and other plaintiffs to sue the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc., under Labor Law and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's summary judgment motion but granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and allowed amendment for an Industrial Code violation claim. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against the defendant, ruling that Carr's injury was not caused by an elevation-related hazard falling within the scope of § 240 (1) and the alleged Industrial Code violation was factually inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim and common-law negligence, concluding that the defendant did not prove the risk was inherent in the work and had exercised supervisory control over the work methods. Consequently, the case was partially affirmed and partially dismissed on specific claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafe Place to WorkGeneral Contractor LiabilityIndustrial Code ViolationElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law Negligence
References
18
Case No. CV-24-1460
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Bonnie Blake

Claimant Bonnie C. Blake appealed an amended decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, which ruled she needed to show ongoing labor market attachment for both her 2000 and 2017 injury claims. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reviewed the applicability of the 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w). The court found that due to her return to full-time employment at pre-injury wages at the time of her 2011 permanent partial disability classification for Claim No. 1, and no finding of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, the 2017 amendment applied retroactively. Consequently, the claimant was not required to demonstrate ongoing labor market attachment for Claim No. 1 to be entitled to indemnity benefits. The Court modified the Board's decision, reversing the requirement for labor market attachment in Claim No. 1 and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w)Labor Market AttachmentPermanent Partial DisabilityRetroactive ApplicationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDue ProcessAppellate Division Third DepartmentWage-Earning CapacityIndemnity BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
14
Case No. ADJ3559950 (GOL 0098088)
Regular
Feb 26, 2009

BALTAZAR PEREZ vs. BLAKE FUENTES PAINTING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding, determining that Dr. Duell's lien claim for medical treatment was not allowable. The Board found that the employer timely denied authorization for the treatment through utilization review, and the treatment was inconsistent with the ACOEM Guidelines. Furthermore, the applicant failed to properly dispute the utilization review denial as required by law. Consequently, Dr. Duell is awarded nothing on his lien claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantBlake Fuentes PaintingState Compensation Insurance FundMark L. Duell D.C.Industrial InjuryRight Arm Shoulder ElbowElectronic StimulationSoft Tissue MobilizationIntersegmental Traction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2013

Boutros v. JTC Painting & Decorating Corp.

This is an Opinion & Order from the Southern District of New York concerning a lawsuit filed by two painters, Kamal Boutros and Samuel Zuniga, against their employer, JTC Painting and Decorating Corporation, and its owner John Caruso. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid overtime, and Zuniga also claimed FLSA retaliation. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FLSA, that Boutros’s FLSA claim was moot due to a Rule 68 offer of judgment, and for the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims. The Court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded FLSA enterprise coverage and that Boutros's FLSA claim was not moot because the Rule 68 offer did not definitively provide the maximum possible recovery, thereby preserving a live controversy. Consequently, the Court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. A conference was scheduled for case management.

FLSANew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeWage and HourRetaliationMotion to DismissRule 68 Offer of JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionEnterprise Coverage
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 263 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