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. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matsos Contracting Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor

GBE Contracting Corporation faced allegations of failing to pay prevailing wages on public works contracts. The Department of Labor initiated proceedings, identifying the petitioner as an alter ego of GBE, thus subjecting it to similar sanctions. Despite being notified of a hearing, both GBE and the petitioner purposefully defaulted, leading to a finding that GBE deliberately underpaid wages and that the petitioner was its alter ego. The petitioner then sought judicial review via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the administrative determination. However, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a party cannot appeal an administrative determination entered upon their deliberate default.

Public WorksPrevailing WageAlter EgoDefault JudgmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewLabor LawCPLR Article 78Corporate LiabilityWage Theft
References
2
Case No. 34145/20; Appeal No. 5727; Case No. 2025-02172
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2026

Coronel v. Marcal Contract Co., LLC

Plaintiff Nelson Guadalupe Coronel, a carpenter for Capital Concrete NY, Inc., moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) after being injured by a falling concrete form. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiff's motion, denied Capital's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, and denied defendants Marcal Contract Co., LLC and AW Pelham, LP's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Marcal and for contractual indemnification against Capital. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order. It affirmed the grant of summary judgment for plaintiff on Labor Law § 240(1) liability. However, it granted defendants' motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action against Marcal, finding Marcal lacked actual control over the work. Consequently, the Appellate Division also granted Marcal and AW Pelham's motion for contractual indemnification against Capital.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Contractual indemnificationSummary judgmentConstruction accidentElevation-related hazardProximate causeGeneral contractor liabilityThird-party liabilityAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Microtech Contracting Corp. v. Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York

Plaintiff Microtech Contracting Corporation sought a preliminary injunction to stop defendants, including the Mason Tenders District Council and Local 78, from displaying an inflatable rat at its work sites. Microtech argued this conduct violated a 'no-strike' provision in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The District Court denied the motion, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act because the underlying labor dispute was not subject to mandatory arbitration as per the CBA. The court also held that Section 104 of the Act specifically prohibits injunctions against publicizing labor disputes by non-fraudulent or non-violent means. Furthermore, the court determined that even if jurisdiction existed, the use of the inflatable rat was protected First Amendment speech and did not fall under the 'disruptive activity' clause of the CBA, which was interpreted to apply only to actions similar to work stoppages.

labor disputepreliminary injunctionNorris-LaGuardia Actcollective bargaining agreementFirst Amendmentinflatable ratunion protestno-strike clausearbitrabilityjurisdiction
References
22
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pyramid Co. v. New York State Department of Labor

The petitioner, Pyramid Co., challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor that its frontage road project in Syracuse, largely constructed on state land to provide access to its shopping mall, was subject to prevailing wage laws under Labor Law § 220. Despite being deemed a "public works project" due to its public benefit and eventual state acquisition, the court found that the Department of Transportation (DOT) was not a party to the construction contract, and the highway work permits issued by DOT did not constitute "contracts for construction." This failed to satisfy a key condition of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, and the petitioner's CPLR article 78 petition was granted.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works ProjectContract RequirementHighway Work PermitsDepartment of Labor DeterminationAnnulmentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingConstruction ProjectState LandCarousel Center
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06406
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Gabel (Bankers Life & Cas. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Christopher M. Gabel, an insurance broker, sought unemployment insurance benefits after his agreement with Bankers Life and Casualty Company (BLC) was terminated. While an Administrative Law Judge initially denied benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, ruling that BLC was liable for contributions. The Board found that Gabel's services were not statutorily exempted under Labor Law § 511 (21) because his actual work was inconsistent with the contract's statutory provisions, and BLC maintained sufficient supervision and control to constitute an employment relationship. BLC appealed, contending its written agreement met the Labor Law requirements and that Gabel was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the actual performance of services must conform to the statutory provisions, not just their inclusion in the contract. The court also found substantial evidence that BLC exercised significant control over Gabel's work, thus establishing an employment relationship.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipInsurance AgentLabor Law § 511 (21)Unemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommon-Law TestEmployer Control
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2011

Kausal v. Educational Products Information Exchange Institute

The plaintiff initiated legal action against the defendant, seeking damages for the breach of an employment contract and a violation of Labor Law article 6. The core of the dispute revolved around an employment agreement where the defendant, through its project manager, sponsored the plaintiff for an H1B work visa, promising a minimum annual salary of $46,500 and tuition benefits. Despite these terms being formalized in visa application documents signed by the defendant's representative, the plaintiff alleged non-payment in accordance with the agreement. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling in favor of the defendant by misclassifying the plaintiff as an independent contractor. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the complaint and awarding judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability, concluding that a valid employment contract existed and the plaintiff was indeed an employee under Labor Law, remitting the case for a trial on damages.

breach of contractemployment contractLabor LawH1B visawage disputewrongful dismissalappellate reviewnonjury trialdamagesliability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kendle v. August Bohl Contracting Co.

Samuel Kendle, an employee of subcontractor Clifford Quay & Sons, Inc., was injured while operating a motorized wheelbarrow at a construction site in Saratoga County. He fell when plywood covering a trench, allegedly dug by defendant August Bohl Contracting Company, Inc. (Bohl), buckled. Kendle and his wife sued the property owners, construction manager, and Bohl, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court dismissed Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims but denied Bohl's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and negligence causes of action. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Bohl did not exercise supervisory control over Kendle's work, a necessary element for Labor Law § 200 liability. The court also dismissed the negligence claim, noting that the trench was readily observable to the experienced plaintiff.

Construction AccidentMotorized Wheelbarrow InjuryWorksite HazardSubcontractor NegligenceLabor Law LiabilityLack of Supervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealAppellate ReversalPlywood Failure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1998

Perez v. Spring Creek Associates, L.P.

This case involves an appeal by Accura Contracting Corporation from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County. The initial action stemmed from a personal injury sustained by an unnamed plaintiff, an employee of Accura, who fell while performing exterior scraping work and alleged violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the defendants, collectively known as Spring Creek, and subsequently granted Spring Creek's motion for common-law indemnification against Accura. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff was not provided with adequate safety equipment for elevated work, a direct cause of the injuries, thus entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court further concluded that Spring Creek, being vicariously liable, was rightfully granted full indemnification from Accura, the party determined to be wholly at fault.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentScaffolding Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 9,023 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