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

R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

This case involves R.M. Perlman, d/b/a Rebecca Moses Collection (RMC), a garment industry employer, suing two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The suit stemmed from picketing aimed at compelling RMC to enter into a Hazantown Agreement, which RMC alleged involved violence and caused substantial losses. The amended complaint included federal claims under the National Labor Relations Act and state law claims such as prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing federal preemption and RMC's failure to meet New York's specific pleading requirements for actions against unincorporated associations. The court found the state law claims were not preempted due to allegations of violent picketing, aligning with exceptions to federal preemption. However, the court ultimately granted the dismissal of the state law claims (counts two through seven) because RMC failed to allege that every single union member authorized or ratified the violent acts, as required by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Curran. Additionally, the individual defendants Byer and Mazur were dismissed because the remaining federal claim under the Labor-Management Relations Act does not allow for individual liability. A motion to dismiss Rebecca Moses as a plaintiff was denied, pending further evidence on her standing. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to replead the dismissed state law claims.

Labor LawFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsUnincorporated AssociationsUnion LiabilityViolent PicketingHazantown AgreementMotion to DismissNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

The case concerns plaintiffs R.M. Perlman Inc. and Rebecca Moses, who initiated an action under the NLRA against two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union. Plaintiffs sought damages alleging unfair labor practices related to the unions' picketing and a proposed "Hazantown Agreement." The central legal question involved whether four specific clauses within the agreement were protected by the garment industry proviso to NLRA § 8(e), thus making the unions' actions lawful. The court meticulously examined each contested clause—the Continuing Obligations, Trimmings, Struck Work, and Trucking Clauses—interpreting them within the context of the Hazantown Agreement and relevant legal precedents. Ultimately, the court determined that all challenged clauses fell within the protection of the garment industry proviso, concluding that the unions' picketing was not unlawful. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

National Labor Relations ActGarment Industry ProvisoUnfair Labor PracticesSummary JudgmentLabor UnionsHot Cargo AgreementsHazantown AgreementSecondary PicketingIntegrated Process of ProductionJobbers
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Alto v. 22-24 129th Street, LLC

Plaintiffs Michael D'Alto, Jr. and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries under common-law negligence and Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The injured plaintiff fell from a cement truck at a construction site owned by 22-24 129th Street, LLC, and leased to Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., while preparing cement for delivery. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for Labor Law § 240(1) claims but granted it for other claims, also denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification between the defendants. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Labor Law § 240(1) claims against both defendants, finding the accident within the purview of the law. However, the court granted summary judgment to Pacific Lawn Sprinklers, Inc., dismissing 22-24 129th Street, LLC's cross-claim for contractual indemnification, as the accident did not occur 'on the demised premises' as defined in the lease.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law §240(1)Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLease InterpretationAppellate ReviewElevation RiskProximate Cause
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. ADJ3408070
Regular
Dec 29, 2011

CARLOS LOPEZ vs. COBBLESTONE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary for a lawyer: Biocare RX Specialty Pharmacy sought reconsideration of a lien dismissal, arguing a representative was available by phone for trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The dismissal order was issued June 13, 2011, and served June 22, 2011, giving the lien claimant 25 days to file for reconsideration. The petition was filed on October 31, 2011, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCJBiocare RX Specialty PharmacyLabor Code section 5903Code of Civ. Proc.section 1013
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1979

Kowalczyk v. Brooklyn Terminal Stores

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision filed on May 1, 1979. The decision denied the claimant’s request for reconsideration of an earlier Board decision, dated June 22, 1978. The prior decision had reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s ruling from June 23, 1977, which had directed the Aggregate Trust Fund to provide additional dependency benefits to the claimant for a period between 1961 and 1965. The court found that the request for reconsideration lacked valid reasons and that the evidence supporting the Board’s original decision was not contradicted. Consequently, the denial of reconsideration was deemed justified and not arbitrary or capricious, leading to the affirmation of the decision.

Reconsideration DenialDependency BenefitsWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard Decision AffirmationJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardEvidentiary Review
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. N-4317/92
Regular Panel Decision

In re Oneida Q.

In a child protective proceeding, the father appealed three dispositional orders from June 9, 1993, and fact-finding orders from February 22, 1993, which found Racielli C. to be an abused and neglected child, and Arodi C. and Hanameel C. to be neglected children. The mother, Oneida Q., appealed a dispositional order from June 9, 1993, which found her to have neglected Racielli C. The appellate court reversed the fact-finding order against Oneida Q. concerning the neglect of Racielli C. and dismissed that part of the petition. However, the court affirmed the dispositional orders against the father, finding that the determination of sexual abuse against his daughter Racielli C. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the child's out-of-court statements corroborated by reenactment with dolls. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the mother's neglect of Racielli C. by a preponderance of the evidence, as there was no indication she knew or should have known of imminent danger.

Child protective servicesChild abuseChild neglectSexual abuseFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate reviewSufficiency of evidencePreponderance of evidenceOut-of-court statementsCorroboration
References
7
Case No. CV-24-2052
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Maini

Claimant John Maini appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded him a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) for his left foot, resulting from a ruptured Achilles tendon suffered in June 2022. The Board had modified a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding of a 40% SLU. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The Court found that the Board properly credited the opinion of the employer's consultant, whose interpretation of the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment, specifically special consideration 6 regarding Achilles tendon ruptures, was consistent with the plain language of the guidelines and prior case law. The Court emphasized that range of motion deficits solely attributable to the Achilles tendon rupture could not be added to the SLU value assigned under special consideration 6, thereby supporting the 22.5% award.

schedule loss of useAchilles tendon ruptureworkers' compensation guidelinesmedical opinionsubstantial evidencemaximum medical improvementrange of motionappellate revieworthopedic surgeonpermanent impairment
References
12
Case No. 156167/22
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2026

Altamirano v. Frick Collection

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff Segundo Altamirano's motion for summary judgment on claims under Labor Law § 240(1) and Labor Law § 241(6), predicated on Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) and 23-1.22(b)(3). The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this order. The case involved the plaintiff falling into a six-foot deep trench after tripping over a cart on a ramp that lacked guardrails, which spanned a two-foot height differential between two buildings. The court found that the ramp was a safety device that failed to prevent the fall, establishing a valid claim under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the arguments regarding the Labor Law § 241(6) claim became academic.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeRamp AccidentFall from HeightConstruction Site SafetyGuardrail FailureTrench FallAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,079 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