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

Hotel Greystone Corp. v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council

This case involves a petition by Hotel Greystone to stay an arbitration initiated by the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO (the "Union"). The dispute arose from an arbitrator's decision to reconsider a previous award, which the Hotel opposed based on timeliness and the doctrine of functus officio. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kaplan, denied the Hotel's motion for a permanent stay of arbitration. The court found that the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was timely under the National Labor Relations Act and that the doctrine of functus officio did not apply due to the parties' agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that New York's CPLR time constraints for modification of awards did not bar reconsideration given the contractual provisions. Consequently, the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRANLRAFunctus OfficioReconsideration of AwardStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationLabor LawContract Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1979

Claim of Diaz v. Plaza Hotel

The claimant, a 52-year-old painter, suffered a left foot injury on April 14, 1978, after falling on a stairway at the Plaza Hotel while leaving work. This stairway was the sole method of ingress and egress for employees. The Workers' Compensation Board found that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment, entitling the claimant to safe ingress and egress. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence to support its findings. Costs were awarded to the Workers' Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace InjuryIngress/EgressEmployment AccidentPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewBoard AffirmationStairway Fall
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Konstantinakos v. Plaza Hotel

The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant’s permanent partial disability was causally related to a 1969 fall during employment at the Plaza Hotel. An award for partial disability was made in 1970. The carrier later sought to reopen the case for apportionment of liability, citing an intervening noncompensable bus accident in 1970 for which the claimant settled a claim. Despite conflicting and contradictory testimony from the claimant regarding the bus accident, expert medical testimony supported the Board's finding of causal relationship. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the Board is entitled to credit believable evidence from the record.

Permanent Partial DisabilityCausal RelationshipWorkers' Compensation AppealIntervening AccidentApportionment of LiabilityMedical TestimonyCredibility of TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewHead Injury
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04470
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Powers v. Plaza Tower, LLC

Plaintiff William Powers was injured after falling through a dismantled catwalk on the roof of a building owned by Plaza Tower, LLC, while installing a window washing scaffold. Plaza had retained plaintiff's employer, Global BMU, LLC, for the work. The Supreme Court denied Plaza's motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Global and granted Global's motion to dismiss the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the accident was due to Plaza's sole negligence for failing to maintain a safe premises or warn of hazards, and that Global and Powers were not negligent.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentContractual indemnificationNegligenceCatwalk collapseBuilding ownerWarning signsDuty to maintainAppellate DivisionWorker injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05931 [153 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Caban v. Plaza Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, Richard Caban, an employee of a carpentry subcontractor, was injured after falling from a scaffold when one of its wheels went into an opening in the floor at a construction site. He sued Plaza Construction Corp. and UBS Real Estate Investments, Inc. (construction manager and building owner) alleging violations of Labor Law and common-law negligence; the defendants then initiated a third-party action against the electrical subcontractor, Forest Electric Corp. for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing certain claims against Plaza and UBS, and granted contractual indemnification, while denying Caban's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Plaza, finding triable issues of fact concerning Plaza's supervisory authority and control over the work. The Appellate Division otherwise affirmed, agreeing that there were triable issues regarding whether the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injury and upholding the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Forest Electric Corp.

Construction site accidentScaffold fallLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationAppellate reviewConstruction manager liabilityProximate cause
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pitta v. Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp.

Vito J. Pitta, as president of the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, sought to vacate or remand an arbitrator's award in a dispute with ten New York City hotels. The dispute arose when hotels docked wages of room attendants who willfully "dropped" rooms as part of a partial work stoppage. The Impartial Chairman upheld the hotels' action. Pitta challenged the award, arguing it exceeded the arbitrator's authority and violated New York Labor Law section 193. The court denied Pitta's motion for summary judgment and granted the hotels' cross-motion, affirming the arbitration award. It found the arbitrator acted within his authority and that federal labor law preempts the state law regarding employer-employee economic self-help in collective bargaining.

Arbitration AwardSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeWage DockingWork StoppageCollective BargainingFederal PreemptionNew York Labor LawLabor-Management Relations ActJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1993

Abreu v. Manhattan Plaza Associates

Antonio Abreu sustained personal injuries when a heavy electrical transformer fell on his hand while he was removing a shipping pallet. He and his wife initiated an action against Manhattan Plaza Associates, the building owner, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Although the jury found Manhattan Plaza not negligent, it found violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), leading to a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs based on absolute liability. Manhattan Plaza Associates appealed, arguing that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the object fell from a "miniscule height," and plaintiffs failed to allege a specific "concrete" Industrial Code provision for Labor Law § 241 (6). The appellate court concurred, modifying the judgment to dismiss the complaint against Manhattan Plaza Associates.

Personal InjuryLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityElevated WorksiteIndustrial CodeConstruction WorkAppellate DecisionJury VerdictDamagesNegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 1986

Pitta v. Hotel Ass'n of New York City, Inc.

The plaintiff, Vito J. Pitta, President of the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and defendant Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., both moved for summary judgment concerning a June 25, 1986 arbitration award issued by defendant Millard Cass, the Impartial Chairman. The Council sought to vacate the award and compel the selection of a new chairman, while the Association aimed to confirm and enforce it. The court found that the Council had the right to unilaterally terminate Cass's term, effective sixty days after notice was given on June 2, 1986. Consequently, the court vacated the arbitration award, ruling that Cass's conclusions were contrary to the court's earlier findings of fact. The Association was directed to participate in selecting a successor chairman, with the order becoming effective on August 29, 1986, to allow for appeal.

ArbitrationLabor Management Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActImpartial ChairmanCollective Bargaining AgreementContract InterpretationEmployment at WillRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
16
Case No. H-95-3595
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 1996

CROWN CENT. PETRO. CORP. v. Rust Scaffold Builders, Inc.

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation (Crown) sued Continental Casualty Company (Continental) for defense costs and indemnification related to lawsuits filed by two SBI employees who claimed injuries from hydrofluoric acid exposure. Crown had a contract with SBI, making Crown an additional insured on SBI's policy. Continental moved for summary judgment, arguing an 'absolute pollution exclusion' in SBI's policy negated its duty to defend or indemnify Crown. The court analyzed the 'eight corners rule' and found the pollution exclusion unambiguous, applying it to the alleged injuries. Consequently, the court granted Continental's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against Continental and Near North.

summary judgmentinsurance policypollution exclusionduty to defendduty to indemnifycontract interpretationhydrofluoric acidpersonal injuryTexas lawFifth Circuit
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 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