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

Slaughter v. American Building Maintenance Co.

Ellis L. Slaughter, a former employee of American Building Maintenance Co. of New York (ABM), moved for partial summary judgment on his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim and to dismiss ABM's affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. Slaughter was terminated by ABM due to excessive absences under a 'no fault' policy, stemming from recurring back pain, a condition known to ABM's predecessor. The court found that Slaughter's notice to ABM regarding his FMLA-qualifying leave was insufficient for summary judgment in his favor, as merely calling in sick did not adequately inform ABM of his FMLA-protected condition, and doctors' notes were provided with delay. However, the court granted Slaughter's motion to dismiss ABM's collateral estoppel defense, ruling that a prior arbitration decision, which upheld his termination for excessive absenteeism, did not preclude his federal statutory FMLA claim because the issues resolved were distinct and the arbitrator did not consider FMLA specifics. The motion for summary judgment was thus granted in part and denied in part.

FMLASummary Judgment MotionCollateral EstoppelAbsenteeism PolicyTermination of EmploymentBack InjuryMedical Leave NoticeLabor LawEmployee RightsPreclusive Effect of Arbitration
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Homan v. Gotham Building Maintenance Corp.

The claimant, a fireman for Gotham Building Maintenance Corporation, suffered an inguinal hernia in 1977 but did not file a workers' compensation claim until 1982 when surgery became necessary. The State Insurance Fund, the carrier, paid for the surgery in September 1983. At a hearing, the employer and carrier argued the claim was time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, as it was filed more than two years after the accident. However, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the carrier's payment for the surgery constituted an advance payment of compensation, thereby waiving the two-year limitation period. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing established precedent that such advance payments, even if made after the statutory period, waive the limitation, especially when timeliness was not disputed before payment.

Workers' CompensationLimitation PeriodAdvance PaymentWaiverMedical ExpensesHernia InjuryTimeliness of ClaimBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewState Insurance Fund
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Arcade Building Maintenance

Jenkins, an African American woman, sued her former employer and several individuals and entities (Initial Contract Serviced, Petar Dedovic, Argirre Lolovic, Arcade Building Maintenance, and Local 32B-32J Service Employees International Union) for alleged discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and gender, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. She claimed harassment and wrongful termination after filing a discrimination complaint in 1993. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, dismissing the § 1981 claims for lack of specific allegations of racial animus and finding gender discrimination not actionable under § 1981. It also dismissed the § 1985 conspiracy claim, ruling that a § 1981 employment discrimination claim cannot serve as its basis. The court further determined that events prior to May 1, 1995, were time-barred and the continuing violation doctrine did not apply due to conclusory allegations. Jenkins was granted leave to replead her First and Second Claims for Relief.

DiscriminationRetaliationConspiracy42 U.S.C. § 198142 U.S.C. § 1985Employment LawMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineRacial Discrimination
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pagan v. International Ladies Garment Workers Union

Plaintiff Matilda Pagan brought a personal injury action after slipping and falling on a hallway floor at premises leased by Local 23-25 International Ladies Garment Workers Union from 1710 Broadway Inc. Supreme Building Maintenance Corp. was the maintenance contractor responsible for the building. Plaintiff alleged that Supreme Building negligently swept the floor with an unknown chemical, creating a slippery condition on newly installed tiles. The Supreme Court initially denied Supreme Building's motion for summary judgment. However, this appellate court reversed the lower court's order, finding the plaintiff's allegations conclusory, self-serving, and highly speculative, without sufficient proof of negligence. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Supreme Building Maintenance Corp., and the complaint against it was dismissed. Additionally, an appeal from a separate judgment, which granted summary judgment to Local 23-25 and 1710 Broadway Inc., was dismissed because Supreme Building was not 'aggrieved' by that judgment.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentMaintenance NegligencePremises LiabilityAppellate ProcedureDismissal of ComplaintLack of EvidenceSpeculative AllegationsThird-Party Action
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00901
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Matter of Hernandez v. KNS Bldg. Restoration, Inc.

Claimant Guadalupe Hernandez sought workers' compensation benefits for knee and shoulder injuries sustained on his first day of work for KNS Building Restoration, Inc., who, along with insurer Zurich American Insurance Company, denied an employment relationship and coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited the claimant's testimony, establishing the claim and finding KNS to be the responsible employer covered by a Zurich wrap-up policy, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the finding of an employer-employee relationship and the Board's credibility determinations. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on administrative review. The decision therefore upholds the finding that Hernandez was an employee of KNS and was injured at its construction site.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationInsurance CoverageConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewNew EvidenceWrap-up PolicyEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 32865(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Pomahac v. TrizecHahn 1065 Avenue of the Americas, LLC

The plaintiff slipped and fell in a building lobby due to a wet floor and subsequently sued the building manager (TrizecHahn) and maintenance company (ABM) for negligence, alleging a failure to place sufficient mats. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they took reasonable precautions by deploying two mats, a caution sign, and having an employee mop. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions on reargument. However, the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants, stating their actions constituted reasonable precautions as a matter of law. The court also held that failure to adhere to an internal policy for mat placement does not automatically equate to negligence if that policy's standard exceeds reasonable care. A dissenting opinion argued that a triable issue of fact existed concerning the reasonableness of precautions given recurring hazardous conditions and insufficient mat coverage.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWet FloorBuilding MaintenanceReasonable Care StandardInternal PolicySlip and FallTerrazzo FloorAppellate Division
References
24
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01870 [192 AD3d 607]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Shala v. Park Regis Apt. Corp.

Plaintiff Sahit Shala was injured while renovating an apartment in a cooperative building owned by Park Regis Apartment Corporation. Park Regis, acting as third-party plaintiff, moved for summary judgment on its claims for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against ASA Building Maintenance, Inc., plaintiff's employer and the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court initially granted Park Regis's motion and denied ASA's. The Appellate Division modified the order, acknowledging that ASA was bound by an alteration agreement requiring indemnification and insurance procurement. However, it found issues of fact precluding summary judgment for both parties on the contractual indemnification and breach of contract claims. Additionally, the court granted ASA's motion to dismiss Park Regis's common-law indemnification and contribution claims, as Park Regis failed to address whether the plaintiff sustained a grave injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Contractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceSummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryAlteration AgreementAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartoo v. Buell

This case addresses whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) applies to structures used for both residential and commercial purposes. The court applies a "site and purpose" test to determine applicability. In Bartoo v Buell, the repair of a barn roof, used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage, was deemed primarily residential, thus granting the owner exemption. In Anderson v Flanagan, the addition of a bedroom to a home also operating a daycare center was found to be directly related to residential use, exempting the owner from liability. The Court concluded that owners of one- or two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work are shielded by the homeowner exemption when the work directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawDual-Use PropertyResidential UseCommercial UseStrict LiabilitySite and Purpose TestScaffold CollapseRoof RepairBedroom Addition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Triple a Maintenance Corp. v. Bevona

Petitioner Triple A Maintenance Corp. ceased contributions to pension and health funds after its collective bargaining agreement with Local 32B-32J expired. The union trustees initiated arbitration, leading Triple A to file a petition in New York state court to stay arbitration, arguing no valid agreement existed. The trustees removed the case to federal court, citing federal question jurisdiction under the LMRA and ERISA. Triple A moved to remand the case back to state court, contending the federal court lacked original jurisdiction. The District Court denied the motion to remand, holding that petitions to stay arbitration concerning collective bargaining agreements inherently involve federal law, regardless of whether federal statutes are explicitly cited, thus establishing federal jurisdiction.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActUnfair Labor PracticesNational Labor Relations ActMotion to RemandContract ExpirationPension Funds
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2002

Hernandez v. 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp.

Plaintiff Alonso Hernandez was severely injured when a hoist, which lacked proper counterweights and securement, collapsed, dragging him from a six-story building. The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding that the hoist was not constructed or operated to provide proper protection. The court rejected the defendant's arguments of recalcitrant worker and sole proximate cause, stating that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the court affirmed the grant of contractual indemnification to the owner, 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp., against the subcontractor, Jumbo Construction Corp., based on the terms of their agreement, as the owner's liability was purely statutory.

Labor Law § 240(1)Hoist CollapseConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 20,879 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