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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. ADJ4416816 (AHM 0140718); ADJ3554653 (AHM 014719)
Regular
Sep 22, 2010

MARK ROGERS vs. ALL ABOUT FLOORS, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES A.K.A WESTERN FLOORING INSTALLATIONS, PSI

This case involves Mark Rogers' claim for workers' compensation benefits for back injuries sustained while employed by All About Floors, Inc. and Barrett Business Services. The applicant alleged cumulative trauma injury, but medical evidence from Dr. Einbund was inconsistent. Despite Dr. Einbund's initial uncertainty and later inability to state with reasonable medical certainty that a cumulative trauma injury occurred, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible and supported by medical reports, thus deeming the medical opinion substantial evidence to uphold the findings of fact.

WCABReconsideration DeniedPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryMedical EvidenceCausation of InjuryDeposition TestimonyApplicant TestimonyJob DutiesSubstantial Medical Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piazza v. Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (BMHA), sustained injuries after falling through a hole in an apartment floor while removing trash. BMHA had contracted Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc., operating as Spectra Contract Flooring, for flooring work, who in turn subcontracted Gregory Simmons, doing business as Simmons Flooring and Remodeling. After the kitchen floor was noted as "spongy," Simmons cut out portions, creating the hole. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. However, the appellate court modified this by denying those parts of the motions and reinstating the claims, finding defendants failed to establish they did not supervise the work, control the premises, or create/have notice of the dangerous condition. Conversely, the court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, ruling that the plaintiff's trash removal duties were not connected to construction activities as defined by that statute. The order was thus modified and affirmed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewSubcontractor Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sickler v. City of New York

Justice Weston Patterson concurs with the majority's dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) and § 200 claims but dissents regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, arguing it should also be dismissed. The judge contends that the plaintiff's injury, which occurred when he slipped on an oily floor and fell through a permanent opening in grating while installing insulation, did not arise from an extraordinary elevation-related risk as contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1). The opinion distinguishes the current case from prior precedents like *Robertti v Powers Chang* by aligning it more closely with *Alvia v Teman Elec. Contr.*, where a similar fall through a permanent floor opening was not deemed an elevation-related hazard requiring statutory protective devices. Furthermore, Justice Patterson asserts that the task of installing insulation around piping does not constitute a "significant physical change" to a structure and therefore does not qualify as an "altering" activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), which would extend its protections.

Labor LawElevation-related riskStatutory interpretationConstruction site safetyWorker injuryInsulation installationAlteration of structureGravity hazardsNew York Appellate DivisionConcurring opinion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re G. Fried Westburry, Inc.

G. Fried Westbury, Inc., a company selling carpet and floor coverings, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that mandated additional unemployment insurance contributions for their carpet installers. Despite a contract classifying installers as independent contractors, G. Fried maintained significant control over their work, including setting rates, scheduling installations, and investigating complaints. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the installers were employees, thereby upholding the assessment for unemployment insurance contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee ClassificationCarpet InstallersSubstantial Evidence ReviewControl TestEmployer LiabilityAppeal Board DecisionLabor LawNew York Appellate Division
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waiters v. Northern Trust Co.

Plaintiff, a cleaning worker for Collins Building Services, Inc. (CBS), was injured after slipping on a wet bathroom floor in a building managed by defendant Tower Realty. He commenced an action for personal injuries against Tower, the building owner, and the 10th floor occupant, alleging negligence for a slippery floor and failure to install a non-skid surface. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not create or have notice of the dangerous condition, and that the plaintiff was hired to remedy such conditions. The Supreme Court initially denied the motions, but the Appellate Court reversed, holding that defendants met their burden of demonstrating a lack of actual or constructive notice. The court also affirmed the principle that a maintenance worker cannot claim injury from a dangerous condition they were hired to remedy, thereby granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing the complaint.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligenceSlippery FloorCleaning Worker InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyActual NoticeConstructive NoticeHearsay Evidence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dunn v. Landmark Flooring Concepts, Inc.

Decedent, a floor covering mechanic, died of a heart attack while working on a renovation project. His widow filed a death benefit claim, which was controverted by Landmark Flooring Concepts, Inc. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an employer-employee relationship and causal link to employment, dismissing the special employment issue as untimely. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. Landmark appealed, arguing it was improperly denied the opportunity to develop the record on special employment. The appellate court found the request timely and that the record contained evidence supporting a special employment claim. The decision was reversed, and the matter remitted to the Board for further development of the record on the issue of special employment.

Special EmploymentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCausal RelationshipHeart AttackAppellate ReviewRemittalProcedural ErrorFactual DisputeSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of Motion
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07971
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2018

Lucheux v. William Macklowe Co. LLC

In this slip and fall action, plaintiff Angelena Lucheux appealed an order denying her motion for sanctions against defendant Elite Terrazzo Flooring, Inc. Elite had cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing that another defendant's cleanup activities constituted an intervening cause, breaking the causal connection between Elite's work and the dusty floor condition on which plaintiff slipped. Plaintiff contended Elite's motion was frivolous and sought its withdrawal, which Elite refused. The motion court, exercising its discretion, determined that Elite's cross-motion was not frivolous, despite being unpersuasive on the merits, and thus denied sanctions. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Slip and FallSanctionsFrivolous MotionSummary JudgmentIntervening CauseCausal ConnectionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionCivil ProcedurePersonal Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MHM Sponsors Co. v. Hirsch

Petitioner, Ogdan CAP Properties LLC, initiated a holdover proceeding against respondent, Paulette Hirsch, seeking possession of her apartment. The petitioner claimed Hirsch unreasonably refused access for necessary repairs to the wood flooring, a repair mandated by a housing code violation. Hirsch defended her refusal by citing severe allergies to the glue used for floor installation, fearing adverse health effects. The court, applying an objective standard, determined that Hirsch's refusal was unreasonable. It concluded that a prudent individual would accept a temporary health risk to mitigate a continuous safety hazard and could have avoided the risk by vacating the premises during repairs. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner a judgment of possession.

holdover proceedingunreasonable refusalaccess for repairshousing code violationlandlord-tenantallergic reactionglue fumesobjective standardjudgment of possessiontenant rights
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 594 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