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

Speedway Home Improvement Co. v. Gourdine

Speedway Home Improvement Co. (Speedway), a licensed contractor, challenged a decision by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Speedway had contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Hannon for home renovation, but after commencing work and receiving partial payments, abandoned the project due to alleged underestimation, demanding further price increases which the Hannons refused. The Hannons filed a complaint with DCA, which, after a hearing, found Speedway guilty of abandoning the contract without justification and awarded the Hannons $21,110. Speedway argued that the DCA hearing denied due process and that the award was arbitrary and excessive. The court, however, found that Speedway received due process, the DCA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the monetary award was not a disproportionate penalty but merely compensated the Hannons for expenses incurred in hiring a second contractor. Consequently, the court denied Speedway's petition and dismissed the proceeding.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewConsumer ProtectionHome Improvement ContractBreach of ContractDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceMonetary DamagesAgency DiscretionContract Abandonment
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06288
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2023

Matter of Puccio v. Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC

Claimant Anthony Puccio, a masonry worker, was rendered paraplegic after falling from a roof in September 2019. He filed a workers' compensation claim against Absolute Chimney & Home Improvement, LLC, which the State Insurance Fund (SIF) initially accepted but later controverted, asserting claimant was a partner and not an employee, thus excluded from coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board disallowed the claim, finding claimant was a profit-sharing partner/owner. Claimant appealed, arguing SIF failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 21-a (3) and that the Board erred in its finding of no employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that the statutory compliance issue was unpreserved and substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant was a partner, not an employee.

Employer-Employee RelationshipPartnership StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCoverage DenialProfit-Sharing AgreementTax Returns as EvidenceAdministrative ReviewReconsideration DenialJudicial Review of Board DecisionsSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. 535751
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Paul Ryba

Paul Ryba, a claimant, sustained injuries while working on a roof and filed for workers' compensation benefits. An investigation revealed that neither the general contractor, Ryan E. Russell d/b/a Ryan's Home Improvements (RHI), nor the subcontractor, Buczkowski Builders LLC, had workers' compensation insurance. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found RHI liable under Workers' Compensation Law § 56 due to the subcontractor's uninsured status. RHI appealed, challenging the applicability of § 56 to uninsured general contractors. The Workers' Compensation Board denied RHI's application for review, citing its failure to fully complete question 13 of the RB-89 application. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying review based on RHI's procedural non-compliance, noting that Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a, which addresses such defects, was not yet effective.

Workers' Compensation LawUninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityAdministrative ReviewAppellate DivisionProcedural ComplianceBoard RulesStatutory InterpretationRB-89 ApplicationSubcontractor
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Biktjorn v. Worley Homes, Inc.

The claimant, a carpenter, entered into a contract to purchase a home from Worley Homes, Inc., agreeing to perform construction work as part of the down payment. While engaged in this work, using materials and a scaffold provided by Worley, the claimant fell and fractured his ankle, leading to a workers' compensation claim. The Referee and the Workmen's Compensation Board initially found an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and Worley. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the claimant was an independent contractor. The court found no evidence of Worley exercising control over the claimant's work, nor a right to discharge him, and noted that the lump-sum payment method further indicated an independent contractor status, based on the "relative-nature-of-work" and "control" tests.

Independent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' CompensationRight to ControlRelative-Nature-of-Work TestScaffold AccidentAnkle FractureCarpenterHome Purchase AgreementDown Payment Work
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the general contractor, commenced an action against its subcontractor's insurer, National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, seeking a declaration of coverage. Home Depot, individually and as assignee of Westward Contracting, Inc., sought to compel National Fire to defend and indemnify it as an an additional insured in an underlying action, and to indemnify Westward. The Supreme Court denied Home Depot's discovery motion, granted National Fire summary judgment declaring Home Depot was not an additional insured, and denied National Fire's motion to dismiss Home Depot's claims as Westward's assignee for lack of standing and for summary judgment on the indemnification obligation to Westward. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding Home Depot was not an additional insured and that the assignment to Home Depot was valid and did not relieve National Fire of its indemnification obligation to Westward.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredIndemnificationSummary JudgmentStandingAssignment of ClaimsSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorCommercial General Liability PolicyAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2012

Bombard v. Pruiksma

Plaintiff was injured while assisting in raising a wall during the construction of a single-family residence owned by defendant John Pruiksma. Plaintiff sued Pruiksma and Top Notch Home Improvement Corporation, the framing contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence. Pruiksma moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Pruiksma, as a one- or two-family dwelling owner, was exempt from Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 because he did not direct or control the injury-producing work. The court also determined there was no evidence that Pruiksma exercised supervisory control over the plaintiff's work or had actual or constructive knowledge of unsafe practices, thereby dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Summary JudgmentHomeowner ExemptionLabor Law 200Labor Law 240Labor Law 241Construction AccidentWorker InjuryOwner LiabilitySupervisory ControlNondelegable Duty
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Harmon Funeral Home, Inc.

Judge Mikoll dissents from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an employer-employee relationship between Harmon Funeral Home, Inc. and its pallbearers. The dissent argues that there is not substantial evidence to support this conclusion, citing a lack of control and direction by the funeral home over the pallbearers. Pallbearers are sourced from a livery service, not instructed by the funeral home, and receive no employee benefits. Although a union agreement designated pallbearers as employees, the dissent states this factor alone should not be determinative given the overall circumstances indicating an independent contractor relationship. The dissent concludes that the Board's decision should be reversed.

Employer-employee relationshipPallbearersIndependent contractorWorkers' compensationUnion agreementControl and directionLivery serviceDissentFuneral homeLabor law
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03030 [228 AD3d 619]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2024

Delaluz v. Walsh

The plaintiff, Raul Garcia Delaluz, an employee of Monumental Marble, was injured while installing granite at a residence when he fell through a wooden slab in the bathtub area. He brought an action against Christine A. Walsh and Built Home Improvements, LLC (BHI) alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted BHI's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against it. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law claims, finding BHI was a separate prime contractor without control over the plaintiff's work. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by reinstating the common-law negligence claim, determining that BHI failed to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact regarding whether it created the dangerous condition or had a duty to warn.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyWorkplace AccidentLabor LawCommon Law NegligenceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionContractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkSubfloor Defect
References
18
Case No. ADJ9199320
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

VICENTE CEPEDA vs. JESUS RAMIREZ DBA JR COATINGS COMPANY; THE HARTFORD; and CLASSIC HOME IMPROVEMENT; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether Vicente Cepeda was an employee of JR Coatings (general employer) or Classic Home Improvement (CHI) (special employer) when he sustained an injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the finding that JR Coatings was the general employer, despite JR Coatings' argument that it lacked control over Cepeda's work. The Board determined Cepeda, lacking a contractor's license, was an employee, and JR Coatings' involvement in facilitating his work under its license made it liable as the general employer. The dissenting opinion argued that CHI was the true employer and JR Coatings was merely a pass-through to circumvent licensing requirements, with no actual employment relationship.

General employerSpecial employerDual employmentContractor's licenseRight of controlIndependent contractorLabor Code section 2750.5Insurance Code section 11663Subcontractor agreementEstoppel
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,212 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