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

Metropolitan Movers Ass'n v. Liu

Petitioners challenged the Comptroller's 2010 prevailing wage schedule for movers, arguing it was irrational and inconsistent with survey results, particularly regarding the application of Labor Law sections 220 and 230. The court found that the Comptroller incorrectly applied the 30% rule from Article 8 (Labor Law section 220), which is meant for 'Public Work' employees, instead of the discretion-based standard under Article 9 (Labor Law section 230) for 'Building Service Employees' like movers. The court also deemed arbitrary and capricious the Comptroller's inconsistent use of 'industry C' employees – including them to meet the 30% threshold but excluding their lower wages from the calculation. Consequently, the court annulled the Comptroller's prevailing wage schedule and remanded the case for a proper determination of the actual prevailing wage under Labor Law section 230, while denying other specific requests from the petitioners.

Prevailing WageLabor LawCPLR Article 78Comptroller DeterminationBuilding Service EmployeesMovers IndustryCollective Bargaining Agreement30% RuleArbitrary and CapriciousAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ4192022
Regular
Nov 16, 2009

MAURICE MONTGOMERY vs. DIRT MOVERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The petition for reconsideration is granted to allow further study of the factual and legal issues.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersLocal officeState Compensation Insurance FundMaurice Montgomery
References
0
Case No. ADJ4192022 (RDG 0099452)
Regular
Feb 23, 2010

MAURICE MONTGOMERY vs. DIRT MOVERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the Maurice Montgomery case: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) award for a back injury, specifically reviewing the apportionment of permanent disability. The defendant argued for a lower disability rating due to a prior left knee injury award in 1989, claiming an overlap. The WCAB found that the ALJ failed to account for the prior award and its potential impact on apportionment. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the ALJ's decision and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, requiring the ALJ to specifically address the apportionment of the prior injury.

Permanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code 4664Industrial InjuryOverlapPrior AwardAgreed Medical ExaminerPetition for ReconsiderationWCJFindings and Award
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gannon v. All Car Movers, Ltd.

The plaintiff suffered personal injuries after slipping on an ice patch on the steps of a building. The building was owned by Abbey Island Park, Inc., leased to Apex Transportation Corp., and subleased to All Car Movers, Ltd. Abbey Island Park, Inc. appealed an interlocutory judgment finding it liable, arguing insufficient evidence of its control over the premises or notice of the ice. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the jury could rationally find the lessor retained control due to a lack of documentary evidence transferring maintenance duties and its own continued grass mowing. Furthermore, the court found the jury could reasonably infer the lessor had notice of the ice patch, which likely formed from a snowstorm six days prior to the accident, despite minor precipitation the day before.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallIce AccumulationLessor ControlConstructive NoticeJury Verdict SufficiencyAppellate AffirmationPersonal InjuryReal Property LawNassau County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2014

Somereve v. Plaza Construction Corp.

The injured plaintiff, operating a prime mover to hoist bricks onto a scaffold, was ejected when the machine flipped forward. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It ruled that the accident was gravity-related, stemming from the prime mover's failure to provide adequate protection or the inability of the equipment to support the load. The defendant's arguments regarding comparative negligence or the need for further discovery were rejected, as comparative negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) and additional testimony would not alter the outcome. The court reiterated that if a statutory violation is a proximate cause of injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame.

Construction AccidentHoisting Equipment FailurePrime Mover AccidentScaffold WorkGravity AccidentSummary Judgment GrantedLabor Law § 240(1)Comparative Negligence IrrelevantStatutory DutyWorkplace Ejection
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teclee v. Siwek

Plaintiff initiated an action for damages and a permanent injunction against defendants, alleging trespassing on his Lake George property during waterline repairs. Defendants, adjoining landowners with an easement across another property for their waterline, filed two counterclaims. The first alleged plaintiff negligently interfered with their contract by withdrawing permission to store excavated dirt. The second claimed plaintiff's representations about dirt storage were false. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims. On appeal, the court found no intentional interference required for the first counterclaim and deemed the second legally insufficient, stating that a revocable oral license without consideration does not create liability. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismissing both counterclaims.

Property DisputeTrespassingEasementCounterclaimsTortious Interference with ContractMisrepresentationOral LicenseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCPLR 3211 (a) (7)
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01194 [169 AD3d 861]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2019

DiSanto v. Spahiu

The plaintiff, Andrew DiSanto, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted summary judgment to the defendant Bledar Spahiu, dismissing causes of action alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200. DiSanto sustained personal injuries when he slipped and fell from a truck while making deliveries to a construction site owned by Spahiu. He claimed to have noticed oil on the street and observed dirt and sand on the construction site and later on his boot after falling. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Spahiu demonstrated, prima facie, that the sand and dirt were open and obvious conditions and that the plaintiff's inability to identify the source of the materials on his boot or the cause of his fall without speculation was fatal to his claim. The court also noted the plaintiff's affidavit was speculative and insufficient.

Personal InjuriesSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Open and Obvious ConditionProximate CauseConstruction SiteSlip and FallAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gavigan v. Bunkoff General Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff James J. Gavigan was injured in a September 8, 1994, workplace accident while employed by a roofing subcontractor on a State correctional facility project. He tripped over a buried rock on a dirt pathway, and subsequently filed a complaint against the prime construction contractor alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their bill of particulars to include 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) and (2). The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the Labor Law § 200 claim failed because the rock was a readily observable hazard, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked a specific implementing regulation. The court further held that the proposed regulatory provisions were inapplicable as the dirt pathway was not a 'floor, platform, passageway or similar working surface'.

Workplace AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyRegulatory ComplianceAppellate ReviewNegligenceReadily Observable DangerContractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kupiec v. Christensen

Plaintiff Mr. Kupiec, injured in a 1978 automobile accident while employed by Kupiec Building Movers, settled a personal injury claim against the defendants for $6,000. The State Insurance Fund, as the workers' compensation carrier for Kupiec Building Movers, had expended $5,919.44 in benefits and $570.87 for medical treatment. Plaintiff moved to declare the workers' compensation lien null and void. The court denied the motion as modified, ruling that while the State Insurance Fund is not entitled to a lien for payments made in lieu of first-party benefits (medical expenses and certain loss of earnings), it can assert a lien for other benefits. Specifically, payments for a permanent partial disability ($4,284) and a permanent facial disfigurement ($400), totaling $4,684, were not considered first-party benefits. The court reduced this lien by the State Insurance Fund's apportioned share of costs, disbursements, and attorney's fees, allowing a lien of $3,122.66.

Workers' Compensation LienAutomobile AccidentFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault LawInsurance LienSettlement ProceedsPermanent Partial DisabilityFacial DisfigurementState Insurance FundSubrogation Rights
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cozzy v. Movers, Inc.

Claimant, a driver and helper for a moving company, sustained a compensable arm and shoulder injury in July 1985. His doctor cleared him for work in May 1986, but before he could return, his employer's president terminated his employment. The claimant subsequently filed a workers' compensation discrimination complaint. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board found discrimination, a decision the employer then appealed. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the termination was discriminatory, stemming from the injury's healing time, internal company politics, and insurance carrier issues. Consequently, the Board's determination was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationTerminationWork InjuryRetaliationEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceInjury LeaveEmployer Appeal
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 28 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