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. 2017 NY Slip Op 02888 [149 AD3d 500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2017

O'Leary v. S&A Electrical Contracting Corp.

Plaintiff Patrick O'Leary sustained injuries from an electrical shock while overseeing renovation work. He sued S&A Electrical Contracting Corp. and 1435 Broadway, LLC (Owner) under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted O'Leary partial summary judgment on liability, denied Owner's motion to dismiss, and denied Nygard's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Owner summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Nygard International Partnership and dismissing all claims against Nygard NY Retail, LLC, while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision. The court found that O'Leary was engaged in construction work, a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 (b) (4) occurred due to negligence, and New York law governed the third-party claims.

Construction accidentLabor Lawindemnificationsummary judgmentvicarious liabilityelectrical shockpremises liabilitythird-party claimschoice of lawcomparative negligence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Petrillo v. Durr Mechanical Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which was unanimously affirmed by an appellate panel. The order granted summary judgment to third-party defendants Proven Electrical Contracting Co. and Barrier Electrical Contracting, Inc., leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint filed by Durr. The court determined that Durr's claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against Proven, the plaintiff's employer, were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because the plaintiff's injuries were not considered "grave." Additionally, Durr failed to demonstrate the existence of contracts requiring indemnification or insurance procurement from Proven. Barrier was also granted summary judgment after establishing it was not present at the job site during the accident and had no relevant contractual obligations to Durr. Durr's speculative request for further discovery was rejected as insufficient grounds to deny summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationInsurance ProcurementGrave InjuryEmployer LiabilityAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. 14-05-00908-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2007

Gilbane Building Company v. Two Turner's Electric Co. Dba Turner Electric Co.

In this case, Gilbane Building Company, a general contractor, appealed a judgment in favor of its electrical subcontractor, Turner Electric Company. Turner Electric sued Gilbane for breach of contract, alleging increased labor costs due to significant compression of the project schedule caused by Gilbane's decisions. The jury found in favor of Turner Electric, and the trial court awarded damages. The appellate court reviewed Gilbane's challenges regarding the sufficiency of evidence for damages and Turner Electric's compliance with contractual conditions for claims. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support Turner Electric's claims and noting that Gilbane had waived its procedural defenses.

Construction LawContract BreachSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorDamages CalculationLabor CostsSchedule CompressionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureBusiness Litigation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. General Electric Co.

The Union, consisting of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and five of its locals, sued General Electric Company under the Taft-Hartley Act to compel arbitration of various grievances. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The central issues revolve around whether the 1956-1960 collective bargaining agreement provides for compulsory arbitration and if the grievances fall within its scope. The court found the contract language ambiguous, requiring extrinsic evidence for proper interpretation. Consequently, the court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing the presence of genuine issues of material fact that warrant a full trial.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationTaft-Hartley ActSummary JudgmentLabor LawContract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceAmbiguityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureGrievance Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stilsing Electric, Inc. v. Joyce

Plaintiff, an electrical contracting corporation, initiated a defamation action against the defendant, a business manager for IBEW Local Union No. 724. The defendant had investigated the plaintiff's apprenticeship program, believing it was non-compliant with state labor laws and regulations. He filed complaints with the State Department of Labor, leading to an administrative hearing. Although an initial review found the plaintiff's program compliant, the defendant's persistence led to a formal hearing where the Commissioner of Labor ultimately dismissed the defendant's complaint. The plaintiff then sued for defamation, alleging that the defendant's written and oral statements during this process led to loss of contracts with Albany County. Special Term denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that he was, at best, entitled to a qualified privilege and that issues of fact regarding malice existed. On appeal, the court determined that the administrative proceeding was quasi-judicial, based on its adversarial nature, reliance on law and facts, and susceptibility to judicial review under CPLR article 78. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant's communications were protected by an absolute privilege, thereby reversing Special Term's orders and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeAdministrative LawQuasi-Judicial ProceedingsLabor Law ComplianceApprenticeship ProgramsFreedom of ExpressionPublic Policy ArgumentsSummary Judgment Motion
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2007

Gartech Electrical Contracting Corp. v. Coastal Electric Construction Corp.

This case concerns a contract dispute between a plaintiff, an electrical subcontractor, and a defendant, a general contractor, over the installation of a fire alarm system. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract due to the defendant's failure to make full payments and coerced signing of partial waivers under economic duress. The defendant counterclaimed, asserting the plaintiff failed to adequately staff the project and abandoned it. Following a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding over $244,000, the Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed the judgment, finding the verdict supported by a valid line of reasoning and sufficient evidence. A dissenting opinion argued the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, particularly regarding the contract interpretation and the claim of economic duress, and called for a new trial.

Contract disputeBreach of contractEconomic duressJury verdictAppellate reviewSufficiency of evidenceWeight of evidenceSubcontractor agreementFire alarm systemPayment dispute
References
18
Case No. 08-21-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2021

Schneider Electric USA, Inc. D/B/A Schneider Electric v. Maria Ramirez

Maria Ramirez, an Aerotek employee assigned to Schneider Electric, filed a workers' compensation discrimination claim against Schneider Electric under Texas Labor Code Section 451.001. Schneider Electric moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be liable under Section 451 because it did not provide Ramirez's workers' compensation coverage, which was handled by Aerotek. The trial court denied Schneider Electric's motion but granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. Schneider Electric, as the appellant, argues that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment, contending that Section 451 liability only applies to the entity providing workers' compensation coverage to the claimant, which in this case was Aerotek, not Schneider Electric. The appellant requests that the appellate court reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment and dismiss Ramirez's claim with prejudice.

Workers' Compensation DiscriminationSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeStaffing Agency LiabilityCo-EmploymentRetaliatory DischargePermissive AppealEmployer LiabilityTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate Brief
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yonkers Electric Contracting Corp. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood Electrical Workers'

This case involves a dispute between Yonkers Electric Contracting Corporation and Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood Electrical Workers’ AFL-CIO regarding a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and its arbitration clause. The Union filed a grievance alleging violations of hiring provisions, but failed to adhere to the PLA's multi-step grievance procedure. A New York Supreme Court judge had previously stayed arbitration due to the Union's procedural non-compliance. Subsequently, the Union initiated a new grievance concerning the same alleged violations and sought to compel arbitration in federal court after removing the case from state court. The federal court, presided over by Judge McMahon, determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the federal action effectively sought to review or overturn the prior state court decision. The court found the new grievance concerned issues "inextricably intertwined" with the prior state court ruling. Consequently, the federal court granted Yonkers Electric's motion to remand the case back to the New York Supreme Court.

Rooker-Feldman doctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionRemandArbitration AgreementProject Labor AgreementGrievance ProcedureFederalismState Court Judgment ReviewLabor Management Relations ActCollateral Attack
References
13
Case No. M2002-00892-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2003

Amprite Electric v. Tennessee Stadium Group

Amprite Electric Company, an electrical subcontractor, sued Tennessee Stadium Group, LLP, a contractor, for compensation for extra work performed on the Adelphia Stadium project. Despite a subcontract requiring written change orders and compensation at actual costs plus 10%, this requirement was mutually waived. Amprite submitted claims based on industry manuals, which were significantly higher than its actual costs. The trial court initially found the contract abandoned and awarded Amprite a large sum based on an implied contract. However, the Court of Appeals held that only the written change order requirement was waived, affirming the original contract's compensation terms. The judgment was modified to allow Amprite a recovery of $170,084.00, based on its actual costs, while vacating awards for builder's risk claims and additional interest on retained funds, and reversing the pre-judgment interest award due to Amprite's inflated claims.

Construction LawContract DisputeWaiver of Contractual ProvisionsChange OrdersSubcontractor CompensationActual CostsQuantum MeruitPromissory EstoppelEquitable EstoppelPre-judgment Interest
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 1980

Claim of Ball v. Benjamin Electric Corp.

The Workers' Compensation Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge, determining that an unnamed 49-year-old claimant sustained an acute myocardial infarction on September 23, 1977. This was attributed to increased work effort and emotional pressures as a supervisor at an electrical contracting firm, specifically due to drastic employee reductions and furloughs caused by poor economic conditions. The claimant's doctor testified the attack was directly related to the work-induced mental and physical strain. Despite conflicting medical evidence and an insurer's consultant denying causal relationship, the board affirmed a causal link between the emotional stress and the cardiac event, a decision supported by substantial evidence.

myocardial infarctionwork-related stressemotional strainindustrial accidentworkers' compensationcausal relationshipmedical testimonysubstantial evidencesupervisor dutiesboard decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,401 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