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 NY Slip Op 05279
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

Espinal v. MPI Mgt. LLC

Eddy Espinal appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss his action. The Supreme Court had erroneously found that it lacked jurisdiction, believing Espinal's claim was exclusively under the National Labor Relations Board. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, clarifying that Espinal's report of unsafe asbestos abatement was not a "concerted" activity covered by the NLRA, nor did it rely on a collective bargaining agreement, thus not falling under the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of lacking jurisdiction due to a prior dismissed NLRB proceeding. The Appellate Division also determined that the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration provision, limited to discrimination claims, did not apply to Espinal's retaliation claim concerning safety violations, leading to the denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyAsbestos AbatementNational Labor Relations ActNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionRetaliation ClaimArbitration ClauseCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
4
Case No. ADJ7288448, ADJ7345282
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

DERVIS ESPINAL vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES/BBSI

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initiated sanctions against attorneys Roy J. Park and Black and Rose LLP, jointly and severally, for $500.00. This action was taken for failure to demonstrate good cause following a notice of intention to impose sanctions. No timely objection was filed by the attorneys. The WCAB accepted the payment of $500.00 received from Black and Rose LLP as full satisfaction of the imposed sanctions.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDremovalsanctionsLabor Code section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561jointly and severallygood causetimely objectionDecision After RemovalGeneral Fund
References
0
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06885
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2025

Sanchez v. 12E63, LLC

The plaintiffs, Santos Miguel Espinal Sanchez et al., appealed an order dismissing their personal injury complaint alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) during construction work on the defendant's property. The defendant, 12E63, LLC, had moved to dismiss based on documentary evidence, arguing homeowner exemption and lack of supervision, which the Supreme Court, Queens County, granted. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendant's documentary evidence did not conclusively refute the plaintiffs' factual allegations or establish a defense as a matter of law under CPLR 3211 (a)(1). Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied, reinstating the plaintiffs' claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSafe Place to WorkHomeowner ExemptionCPLR 3211 (a) (1)Motion to DismissAppellate ReviewDocumentary EvidenceReversed
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02615 [138 AD3d 682]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Federico v. Defoe Corp.

The injured plaintiff, Nicholas Federico, a laborer for El Sol Contracting, was struck by a vehicle while performing lane closures on the Gowanus Expressway. He and his wife sued Defoe Corp., another contractor on the project, alleging common-law negligence for prematurely removing its lane closures which El Sol had "piggybacked" on. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted Defoe Corp.'s motion for summary judgment, determining that Defoe owed no duty of care to Federico under the Espinal exceptions and that its conduct was not a proximate cause of the accident. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its original determination. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, dismissing the negligence cause of action against Defoe Corp.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentNegligenceSummary JudgmentDuty of CareProximate CauseContractual ObligationThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewLaborer
References
7
Showing 1-4 of 4 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