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
May 05, 2022

Wood v. Baker Bros. Excavating

Clifford Wood, a concrete laborer, sustained injuries after falling approximately three feet from a bridge footing at a work site. He initiated a lawsuit against Baker Brothers Excavating (KER), the general contractor, and Brinnier and Larios, P.C., an engineering firm, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Wood moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Supreme Court denied his motion, determining that while Wood met his initial burden, KER had raised triable issues of fact concerning the availability and usage of safety equipment and Wood's specific task at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against KER.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor LawSummary judgmentTriable issues of factWorksite safetyAppellate DivisionGeneral contractorEngineering firmPlaintiff's motion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Telephone Employees Organization, Local 1100, Communications Workers of America v. Woods

This case concerns a plaintiff union, Telephone Employees Organization, Local 1100, Communications Workers of America, attempting to convert a disciplinary financial sanction of $4,939.20 into a judgment against defendant John Woods. The sanction was imposed for Woods crossing a picket line during a strike, violating the union's constitution. Woods defended by claiming he was not a member of the union at the time. The court first determined it had jurisdiction over the nonmembership defense, rejecting the union's preemption argument. Subsequently, the court found that the plaintiff union failed to demonstrate Woods was formally admitted to membership in Local 1100 as required by its constitution and bylaws, lacking proof of an application or initiation fee payment. Consequently, as a nonmember, Woods was not bound by the union's rules prohibiting picket line crossing, rendering the fine unenforceable. The court dismissed the union's complaint and the defendant's counterclaim.

Union Disciplinary ActionPicket Line ViolationUnion Membership DisputeNLRA PreemptionState Court JurisdictionUnion ConstitutionContract EnforcementLabor LawUnion FinesResignation from Union
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. State University of New York

Norman Woods, an employee of SUNY and a member of a bargaining unit, was placed on probation in 2013 following an arbitration and subsequently terminated in 2014 due to a negative performance evaluation. Woods and his union sought to compel arbitration for the 2014 termination or to annul the termination. The Supreme Court initially erred by converting the proceeding to an application to confirm the 2013 arbitration award and remitting the matter for clarification, as the arbitrator's authority was limited to the issues presented at that time. The court also found that petitioners failed to provide sufficient proof of bad faith or improper motivation for Woods' termination, which was justified by poor work performance. The judgment is reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Arbitration DisputePublic Employee TerminationProbationary EmploymentBad Faith TerminationPerformance EvaluationCollective BargainingJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Court DecisionRemittal
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00635
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2019

Vicuna v. Vista Woods, LLC

Cristian Vicuna, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while engaged in roofing work for Vista Woods, LLC. He initiated a lawsuit against Vista Woods, LLC, Ruby Construction Services, LLC, and Builders Choice of New York, Inc., asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), alongside common-law negligence claims. The Supreme Court, Orange County, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting his motion for summary judgment on the liability issue under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division, Second Department, upheld this decision, concluding that the plaintiff presented sufficient prima facie evidence through his deposition testimony that the ladder shifted unexpectedly, and the defendants failed to present a valid factual dispute.

Personal InjuryLadder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNondelegable DutyProximate CauseSafety DevicesRoofing Work
References
13
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. M.V. Woods Construction Co.

In this dissenting opinion, Judges Scudder and Kehoe argue that the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant M.V. Woods Construction Co., Inc.'s cross motion to set aside a jury verdict. The plaintiff, Charles C. Smith, was injured while lifting cement blocks onto an eight-foot-high scaffolding, and the jury found a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (f). The dissenting judges contend that the Industrial Code provision, concerning safe vertical passage, is inapplicable because the plaintiff's injury was not related to accessing working levels but to manual material handling. They conclude that any alleged violation was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's back injury, and the complaint against the defendant should have been dismissed.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(f)Scaffolding SafetyProximate CauseJury VerdictDissenting OpinionMaterial HandlingSafe Means of AccessAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1978

Claim of Carr v. Woods

Claimant Cecil M. Carr sustained a back injury after falling from a ladder while painting a home owned by Ann M. Woods. Woods initially classified Carr as an 'Independent Laborer,' but he filed a compensation claim, leading to a dispute over his employment status. Evidence showed Carr worked for Woods as a handyman for two decades across multiple properties, furnishing his own tools and being paid hourly, though no taxes were withheld. Despite these factors, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a referee's decision, finding an employer-employee relationship existed due to Woods's significant control and direction over Carr's work, including the right to assign tasks and terminate employment. The board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorScope of EmploymentControl TestSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor LawBack InjuryEmployment Status
References
2
Case No. 01-CV-0229(ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2004

Wood v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF PATCHOGUE OF NY

The plaintiff, Donald R. Wood, Jr., filed a class action lawsuit against the Incorporated Village of Patchogue and various officials, alleging a scheme to illegally enforce traffic laws and collect fines through an unauthorized 'constabulary.' The complaint included claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a state law claim for money had and received. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted dismissal for claims against the Village, officials in their official capacities, and several individual defendants (Justices Yannacone and O'Connell, and several Village Clerks). However, the court denied dismissal for RICO and money had and received claims against Mayors Stephen Keegan and Edward Ihne, and Chief Constables Jeffrey Kracht and Louis Tomeo, in their individual capacities, and granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

RICOCivil RightsSection 1983Judicial ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityMail FraudWire FraudRacketeeringConstabularyTraffic Violations
References
103
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Woods v. State University of New York

Norman Woods, a security services assistant at the State University of New York (SUNY), represented by the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NYSCOPBA), received a notice of discipline and was placed on a one-year probation following an arbitration award in October 2013. His employment was terminated in June 2014, leading NYSCOPBA to file a grievance, which SUNY rejected. Petitioners commenced a proceeding to compel arbitration or annul the termination, but the Supreme Court converted it into a proceeding to confirm the arbitration award and seek clarification. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division determined that the Collective Bargaining Agreement's disciplinary provisions were ambiguous and could cover Woods' dismissal, thus the Supreme Court erred in not granting the petition to compel arbitration. The court found that the issue of whether the CBA governs Woods' dismissal should be decided by an arbitrator.

ArbitrationPublic EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DisciplineProbationary EmployeeGrievanceTaylor LawCivil Service LawCompel ArbitrationJudicial Review
References
9
Case No. ADJ7050005
Regular
Sep 06, 2013

Jessica Wood vs. Business Machines Consultants, INC., Employers Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jessica Wood's Petition for Removal. Wood alleged unfair treatment by the judge, objections improperly raised by defendants, false statements by an Information and Assistance Officer, and manipulation of the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm and therefore no grounds for removal. The WCJ detailed Wood's history of objections, delays, and failure to appear, concluding that her actions constituted a waiver of her rights.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10848WCAB Rule 10860supplemental petitionin propia personaLabor Code §132AInformation and Assistance OfficerCompromise and Releaseattorneys' feesdeposition
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 144 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