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
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarco Industries v. Angello

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioners challenged a determination that they failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements. Petitioners, contractors for a project at Cornell University, were found by a Hearing Officer to have underpaid 10 workers and paid apprentice wages to unregistered apprentices. Crucially, they willfully underpaid Nathan McGeever by paying him an an apprentice rate while he worked without journeyman supervision, thereby entitling him to be paid at the higher journeyman rate. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that petitioners knew or should have known they were violating Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination, dismissed the petition, and upheld the 20% civil penalty imposed.

prevailing wagesapprentice wagesLabor Law § 220willfulnessCPLR Article 78judicial reviewcivil penaltyconstruction contractjourneyman supervisionunderpayment
References
8
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1990

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 580

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce subpoenas against entities related to defendants Local 580 and AJEF to uncover their true financial condition. The defendants claimed financial impossibility in complying with a consent judgment regarding discrimination. After a Special Master's initial denial of discovery for certain years was overturned by the court, the defendants and non-parties moved to vacate the Special Master's revised order and dismiss EEOC's appeal, citing procedural irregularities. The court denied their motion, affirming the relevance of the financial records and rejecting their procedural arguments, as well as denying a request for interlocutory appeal certification and a stay of production.

Employment DiscriminationContempt of CourtConsent Judgment EnforcementDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Duces TecumSpecial Master AuthorityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInterlocutory AppealUnion FinanceApprenticeship Programs
References
7
Case No. ADJ6707712
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

Marco Peris vs. Oakland Opera Theater, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves Marco Peris appealing a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB had previously rescinded an award of 100% permanent disability, finding the record insufficient to establish applicant's future earning capacity at the maximum rate. Peris argued the board should have accepted his testimony of earning $38/hour as a journeyman laborer. The WCAB dismissed Peris's current petition for reconsideration, stating reconsideration is only permissible from a final order, not an interlocutory order returning a case for further development of the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarco PerisOakland Opera TheaterState Compensation Insurance FundADJ6707712Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent disabilityfuture earning capacity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oppedisano v. Randall Electric, Inc.

Claimant, a journeyman electrician employed by Randall Electric, Inc., sought workers’ compensation benefits due to chemical and fume exposure. Randall Electric, Inc. argued for apportionment of liability, claiming Buckbee-Mears Cortland (BMC) was a special employer. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled against a special employment relationship, designating Randall as the sole employer. Randall appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that there was substantial evidence that BMC did not assume control over the claimant's work, thus failing to establish a special employment relationship.

special employmentworkers' compensation benefitsemployer liabilityapportionment of liabilitycontrol testappellate reviewjourneyman electricianchemical exposureWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Binetti v. MK West Street Co.

Plaintiff, a journeyman electrician employed by subcontractor Coyne, was injured while performing temporary lighting duties on a construction project. He fell from a ladder after hitting an unseen bucket while descending, sustaining injuries. His Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which had been dismissed by the Supreme Court, Bronx County, was unanimously reversed on appeal. The court determined that his activities were integral to the construction work, not mere maintenance, and that falling even a short distance from a ladder on a construction site constitutes an elevation-related risk covered by the statute. Therefore, the motion to dismiss his claim was denied, and the claim was reinstated.

Labor LawConstruction Site SafetyLadder FallElevation-Related RiskStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReinstated ClaimSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2007

Miglionico v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc.

Plaintiff, a journeyman carpenter, fell five stories while clamping columns at a construction site due to the alleged lack of safety devices. He commenced an action asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 against the owners and general contractor. The Supreme Court granted his motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1). The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that defendants failed to rebut plaintiff's expert proof that, even if harnesses were provided, there was no appropriate 5,000-pound anchorage point, thus failing to provide the 'proper protection' required by the statute.

summary judgmentlabor lawconstruction accidentfall protectionanchorage pointsafety devicesproximate causeemployer liabilitygeneral contractor liabilityowner liability
References
2
Case No. 06 Civ. 6377(WHP)
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2009

New York District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Perimeter Interiors, Inc.

This Memorandum & Order addresses defendants' objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on damages for unpaid fringe benefit contributions under ERISA and LMRA. Plaintiffs, various Carpenters Benefit Funds, had previously secured summary judgment against Perimeter Interiors and its president, Susan Reidy, for operating a secret bank account to evade contributions. The Magistrate Judge recommended a total award of $2,508,324.84. The District Court adopted the report, affirming findings of covered work, the alter ego status of Perimeter and Speedy Enterprises, and the awards for attorney's and auditor's fees, with a minor correction to principal damages. The Court denied defendants' objections, directing entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the full recommended amount.

ERISALMRAEmployee BenefitsFringe Benefit ContributionsSummary JudgmentDamages InquestMagistrate Judge ReportObjections DeniedAlter Ego DoctrineUnpaid Contributions
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nash v. New York State Department of Labor

Petitioner, a self-employed electrician and sole proprietor, was found by the Commissioner of Labor to have willfully underpaid prevailing wages and supplements to employees on two public works projects. An investigation by the Department of Labor and a subsequent hearing confirmed that petitioner's employees, despite lacking apprentice registration, performed work classified as journeyman electrician duties and were underpaid by significant amounts. The Hearing Officer's recommendation that the underpayment be found willful, with interest and a civil penalty, was adopted by the Commissioner. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review this determination. The court confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding substantial evidence supported both the employee classification and the finding of willfulness, and rejected petitioner's constitutional arguments.

Prevailing WageLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsUnderpayment of WagesWillful ViolationApprentice ProgramJourneyman ElectricianTrade ClassificationCollective Bargaining AgreementConstitutional Arguments
References
23
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07102
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Gillett v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a journeyman carpenter, was injured after falling from a closed A-frame ladder while installing sheetrock in the basement of P.S.70 in Queens. He commenced an action alleging, among others, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing this cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court found that triable issues remained as to whether the ladder could have been placed safely and whether the plaintiff's use was tacitly approved, thus denying the motion for summary judgment.

Personal injuryLadder accidentLabor LawSummary judgmentAppellate reviewConstruction safetyWorker injuryProximate causeSafety regulationsPremises liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 27 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