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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06963
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

International Union of Painters & Allied Trades, Dist. Council No. 4 v. New York State Dept. of Labor

This case addresses the interpretation of New York's prevailing wage law, Labor Law § 220 (3-e), concerning apprentice wages on public work projects. The International Union of Painters & Allied Trades and glazing contractors challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) policy which stipulates that apprentices must perform tasks within their registered trade classification to be paid apprentice rates. Plaintiffs argued this policy increased costs and limited on-the-job training for glazier apprentices whose curriculum included tasks classified as ironwork. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, upholding the DOL's interpretation as rational. The Court reasoned that the statute's language was ambiguous, and the DOL's policy prevented employers from using apprentices as cheap labor outside their specific trade, thereby ensuring proper training and maintaining construction standards.

Prevailing Wage LawApprentice WagesPublic Work ProjectsGlazier ApprenticesIronworker TasksStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DeferenceLabor Law § 220Trade ClassificationWorkforce Development
References
17
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06041
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2014

Abelleira v. City of New York

The plaintiffs, Fernando Abelleira et al., appealed an order denying their cross motion for summary judgment on liability for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The injured plaintiff, a construction foreman, was hurt when a defective pneumatic pipe plug exploded during a pressure test. The Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding the plaintiffs failed to show the defendants had supervisory control over the work or actual/constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The court also properly denied and dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the cited Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-9.2 (a) and (b) (1)) were either inapplicable or general safety standards. The defendants' cross-appeal was withdrawn, and the Appellate Division affirmed the order.

Construction accidentPersonal injurySummary judgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial CodeCommon-law negligencePremises liabilitySupervisory controlAppellate review
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06470 [188 AD3d 506]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Singh v. Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc.

Plaintiff Balwinder Singh appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) claims and granting defendants' motions to dismiss various claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The court reinstated Singh's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(2)) and his common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc. However, it dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1)) against Benny & Son Construction Corp. The decision noted triable issues of fact regarding whether the debris causing the slip was integral to Singh's work and MFL's constructive notice of the debris. Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) was found inapplicable due to the accident's location in an open area, not a passageway.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentSlip and FallDebris AccumulationConstructive NoticeAppellate DivisionLiability
References
6
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03346 [205 AD3d 573]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

Lopez v. Halletts Astoria LLC

Plaintiff, an S&E employee, was injured at a construction site while fixing a misaligned hoist elevator when an adjacent ascending hoist elevator struck his foot. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and specific Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, and granted plaintiff summary judgment on those claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-6.1 (c) (1) and denied plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) (Industrial Code § 23-6.3 (g)) claims. The court found issues of fact regarding whether permitting concurrent hoist operation was a proximate cause of the injury and whether defendant New Line Structures & Development LLC had the authority to control the activity. The decision also affirmed the severance of the third-party action due to inexcusable delay.

Construction accidentHoist elevator injuryPersonal injuryLabor Law claimsIndustrial Code violationsProximate causeSummary judgmentThird-party liabilityAppellate reviewForeseeability of risk
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03169 [161 AD3d 813]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2018

Yao Zong Wu v. Zhen Jia Yang

This case concerns an appeal from orders regarding personal injuries sustained by Yao Zong Wu, who fell from a ladder while working on property owned by Zhen Jia Yang et al. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss both causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion. However, it modified the second order by reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, concluding that the defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that the ladder provided proper protection or that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.21 (b) (4) (ii), was affirmed, as the alleged violation was found not to be a proximate cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentProximate CauseAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyIndustrial CodeSafety DevicesWorkplace Accident
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04749 [231 AD3d 414]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2024

Pitang v. Beacon Broadway Co., LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order that denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, and dismissed the complaint against Beacon Broadway Co., LLC and Beacway Operating, LLC. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the original order. It denied Skyline Restoration, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing Beacway's contractual indemnification claim and granted Beacway conditional summary judgment on that claim, contingent on a determination of the worker's potential negligence. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law claims, concluding that the worker's four-foot fall did not constitute an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that no specific Industrial Code provision was cited for Labor Law § 241 (6). It also affirmed the dismissal of Beacon's indemnification claim as it was not a signatory to the relevant agreements.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate DivisionWorker InjuryElevation RiskIndustrial CodeThird-Party LiabilityConstruction Site AccidentNegligence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 9,859 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