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

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. 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
Aug 11, 2004

Lopez v. City of New York Transit Authority

Plaintiff David Lopez, a journeyman electrician, was injured at a job site when he slipped on debris while closing an extension ladder, crushing his wrist. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the § 240 (1) claim, reasoning that the injury was not elevation-related. However, it reversed the dismissal of the § 241 (6) claim, concluding that the extensive debris could support alleged violations of Industrial Code provisions 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and (e) (2) regarding slipping and tripping hazards. Furthermore, the court found a triable issue regarding whether the ladder met the requirements of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21.

InjuriesConstruction AccidentLadder AccidentSlip and FallDebrisIndustrial Code ViolationsSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Elevation-Related Risk
References
5
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

Claim of Gelbman v. Cornell Maintenance Corp.

Claimant, a taxicab driver and electrician, sustained a permanent partial disability after a work injury as a taxicab driver, leading to reduced earnings benefits. The compensation carrier sought to discontinue these benefits, arguing his current electrician salary negated the need. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied this application, upholding that earnings from a distinct, concurrent occupation should not offset benefits for a lost profession. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, relying on established precedents that support compensation for lost earnings in one job regardless of income from another dissimilar role.

Permanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsConcurrent EmploymentDual EmploymentWage LossAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawDisability BenefitsEarning CapacityMedical Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2003

Claim of Soop v. Borg Warner Automotive

Claimant, an electrician at Borg Warner Automotive, filed for workers' compensation benefits after experiencing neck and left shoulder pain, leading him to stop working in February and April 2001. His physician concluded he was permanently disabled from electrician work but capable of sedentary tasks. The employer offered light-duty work, which claimant declined. Consequently, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and Board denied his claim, finding he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that claimant refused suitable employment.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketLight DutySedentary WorkSubstantial EvidenceDenial of BenefitsElectricianPermanent DisabilityAppellate Review
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson's Lamp Lighters, Inc. v. Roberts

Petitioner, a nonunion electrical contractor, sought judicial review under CPLR article 78 to challenge a Department of Labor determination. The Department found that petitioner willfully underpaid its employees—specifically, a carpenter and a laborer—by misclassifying their work as non-electrical, despite them performing electrician's duties on a public works contract. This finding resulted in an assessment of interest and a civil penalty. Petitioner contended that there was insufficient evidence for the findings of electrician's work and willful underpayment. The court confirmed the Department's determination, citing that classifying work is within the agency's expertise and that, based on the evidence presented, willfulness could rationally be implied from petitioner's past public works experience. The petition was dismissed.

Public WorksPrevailing WageUnderpaymentEmployee ClassificationElectricianLabor LawWillful ViolationAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2005

Tortorella v. A.C. & S., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's claim against Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for alleged asbestos exposure of a decedent electrician. The exposure purportedly occurred while the electrician installed emergency generators at a Con Edison facility in the mid-1960s, due to ongoing work by insulation contractors. The plaintiff alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied Con Edison's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting Con Edison's motion and dismissing the complaint. The appellate court found no evidence that Con Edison exercised supervisory control over the contractors or the decedent, or that the alleged asbestos exposure resulted from a workplace condition created by or known to Con Edison. The court also rejected the plaintiff's procedural objections regarding Con Edison's prima facie entitlement to judgment.

Summary JudgmentAsbestos ExposureLabor Law § 200NegligenceAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyPremises LiabilityContractor LiabilitySupervisory ControlWorkplace Condition
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 121 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