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. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

San Antonio Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of San Antonio

The San Antonio Building and Construction Trades Council (SABTC) and individual representatives challenged the City of San Antonio regarding prevailing wage requirements for construction workers on a convention center hotel project. SABTC argued that Chapter 2258 of the Texas Government Code mandated prevailing wages, but the trial court denied this, finding that despite being a 'public work', no 'public funds' were used for its construction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It determined that public funds pledged as security for revenue bonds, or the bonds themselves, did not constitute public funds used for the 'construction' of the project under the relevant statute.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic WorksPublic FundsAssociational StandingLabor LawDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Government CodeRevenue BondsHotel Occupancy TaxStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Candela v. New York City School Construction Authority

Plaintiff Calogero Candela sustained injuries when a window sash fell on him at a construction site. He brought a claim under Labor Law § 200 against the New York City School Construction Authority, Spacemaster Building Systems, LLC, and TDX-Becom. A jury initially found in favor of the defendants, implicitly concluding they lacked notice of the defective windows. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the jury had no reasonable basis to reject testimony indicating the defendants, particularly Spacemaster, had actual or constructive notice of widespread window balance system defects prior to the accident.

Construction AccidentWindow DefectLabor LawPremises LiabilityNoticeJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNegligenceWorkplace SafetyFalling Object
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fra-Dee Construction Inc. v. Roberts

In 1983, Fra-Dee Construction, Inc. contracted with the Office of General Services for renovation work at the Alden Correctional Facility. A dispute arose over whether the work should be categorized as residential or building construction for prevailing wage purposes, with Fra-Dee paying the lower residential rate. An audit and subsequent administrative hearing determined that the higher building construction rate applied, and Fra-Dee was found liable for back wages, punitive interest, and a civil penalty. Although the violation was deemed non-willful due to inexperience, the Commissioner of Labor affirmed the determination. The court, however, modified the decision by reducing the punitive interest rate from 10% to 6%, while affirming the applicability of the building construction rate and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Prevailing wagepublic worksLabor Law 220residential constructionbuilding constructionwage scheduleadministrative hearingArticle 78 proceedingpunitive interestnon-willful violation
References
1
Case No. E2014-00139-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

MSK Construction, Inc. v. Mayse Construction Company

MSK Construction, Inc. (MSK) filed a breach of oral contract action against Mayse Construction Company (Mayse) for failure to pay for equipment and fuel used in a construction project for the City of Athens. Mayse denied liability and filed a counterclaim for negligent misrepresentation, alleging MSK failed to include concrete testing costs in their estimate. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MSK, awarding damages and prejudgment interest, and denied Mayse's counterclaim. Mayse appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety, finding a valid oral contract existed and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim.

Breach of Oral ContractConstruction DisputeEquipment UsePrejudgment InterestNegligent MisrepresentationSubcontractor AgreementVendor AgreementAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationsDamages
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. CA 12-00504
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

MILLER, DEBRA J. v. SAVARINO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Plaintiff Debra J. Miller commenced a personal injury and wrongful death action after her decedent suffered a fatal heart attack at a building allegedly owned by defendant 26 Mississippi Street LLC, undergoing renovation. Defendant Savarino Construction Corporation was the construction manager. The decedent suffered a heart attack after ascending five flights of stairs to attach a temporary heat cannon. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that 26 Mississippi did not own the building at the relevant times and Savarino Construction had no control over the work or premises. The court also dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action due to plaintiff's failure to allege a violation of a qualifying Industrial Code provision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Premises LiabilityOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 1984

Moore Construction Co. v. Clarksville Department of Electricity

This case concerns a contractor's claim for delay damages arising from the construction of an office building and warehouse for the Clarksville Department of Electricity. Moore Construction Company sued the Department, Kennon Construction Company (a co-prime contractor), and Cincinnati Insurance Company (Kennon's bonding company), alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and third-party beneficiary claims. The trial court awarded Moore Construction Company $2,719.75 for extra work but denied delay damages, citing a lack of a written change order. On appeal, the court affirmed the award for extra work and modified the judgment to include an additional $8,986.08 in delay damages. The appellate court ruled that the Department's conduct waived the written change order requirement, and that Moore was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Kennon and the Department, allowing recovery for certain increased supervisory, overhead, and equipment-related costs resulting from the delay.

Construction LawContract BreachDelay DamagesThird-Party BeneficiaryWaiver of Contract TermsConstruction ProjectPrime ContractorsSurety BondsOverhead CostsLabor Costs
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Sullivan v. IDI Construction Co.

Sean O’Sullivan, a cement and concrete laborer, was injured on October 14, 2000, when he tripped over a pipe at a multistory construction site in Manhattan. The property was owned by 251 East 51st Street Corp., with IDI Construction Company as the general contractor. O'Sullivan's employer, Cosner Construction, was the concrete subcontractor, and Teman Electrical Construction, Inc. was the electrical subcontractor. This document presents a dissenting opinion arguing that while there is no viable claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), questions of fact remain regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, which should preclude summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action. The dissent highlights that the pipe, which was permanently embedded in the floor and not barricaded or sufficiently visible, could constitute an unsafe condition. It suggests the owner and general contractor might be liable due to their potential input into the pipe's placement and the general contractor's assigned 'site safety manager'. The dissenting judges would reverse the extent of denying summary judgment for the defendant with respect to the Labor Law § 200 claim and reinstate it.

Construction accidentTrip and fallLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceWorkplace safetySummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityProperty owner liabilitySubcontractor responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Region v. W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding the electrocution death of a construction worker and the application of Labor Law § 240. The decedent, Grover J. Region, an ironworker employed by McBrearity's Metal Building Erectors, was fatally injured on November 18, 1982, when a crane cable he was helping to operate came into contact with high tension electric lines at a construction site in Ulster County. The plaintiff, administratrix of the decedent's estate, filed a lawsuit against property owner William J. Woodward and contractor W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc., among others, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide proper safety measures for crane operation near electrical hazards. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against Woodward and Woodward Construction, who subsequently appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that the defendants had violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to implement necessary safety precautions for the crane, which was being used as a hoist, thereby incurring absolute liability for the injuries proximately caused.

ElectrocutionConstruction AccidentCrane OperationLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityWorker SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,402 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