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
Nov 13, 2000

Rosenberg v. Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc.

Robert Rosenberg, an employee of an alarm company, was allegedly injured after tripping over cardboard at a construction site. He and his wife sued Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc. (the general contractor) and Dave Mims Fifth Generation Painting Contractors (a subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Mims but denied Krupinski's motion for similar relief. On appeal, the order was modified; Krupinski's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim was granted, as Krupinski established it had no authority to control the activity causing the injury. However, the motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly denied due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a passageway or work area and whether specific regulations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) or (2)) were violated, and whether Krupinski was still the general contractor at the time of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactLabor Law CompliancePremises LiabilitySubcontractor
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chesterfield Associates v. New York State Department of Labor

This case addresses Chesterfield Associates' challenge to the New York Department of Labor's 'annualization' rule (12 NYCRR 220.2 [d]), used to assess compliance with the prevailing wage law (Labor Law art 8) on public projects. Chesterfield disputed the annualization of its profit-sharing pension contributions made on behalf of employees who worked on public projects in Nassau and Suffolk counties between 1994 and 1997. The annualization rule calculates an hourly cash equivalent of benefits by dividing total contributions by total annual hours worked (both public and private). Chesterfield argued this methodology effectively penalized contractors by demanding prevailing rates for private work or forcing cash supplements. The Commissioner of Labor, whose decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, determined that annualization was a reasonable method to value fringe benefits, prevent cost-shifting, and ensure fair competition among contractors.

Prevailing Wage LawAnnualization RuleLabor Law § 220Fringe BenefitsPension ContributionsPublic Works ProjectsContractor ComplianceProfit-Sharing PlanJudicial ReviewAdministrative Deference
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. (B&C), a general contractor, sought to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing state prevailing benefit supplement laws. This action stemmed from B&C's subcontractor, Shared Management Group, Ltd., allegedly failing to pay union-related benefit funds, leading the DOL to order the withholding of payments to B&C. B&C argued that New York Labor Law §§ 220 and 223, which impose liability on general contractors for subcontractor non-compliance with prevailing wage laws, are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court reviewed various precedents on ERISA preemption, including GE I and GE II, and concluded that New York Labor Law § 223 is fundamentally linked to § 220, which directly relates to ERISA plans. Therefore, the court found § 223 also preempted by ERISA, granting B&C's motion for summary judgment and denying the DOL's cross-motion.

ERISA preemptionLabor LawPrevailing Wage ActBenefit supplementsGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor defaultPublic works contractSummary judgmentFederal preemptionEmployee benefit plans
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03294 [205 AD3d 1243]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Matter of Truax & Hovey, Ltd. (Commissioner of Labor)

This case involves an appeal by Truax & Hovey, Ltd. (T&H) from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. T&H, an interior construction company, was found liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for drywall installers and finishers it considered independent contractors. The Department of Labor's determinations, upheld by Administrative Law Judges and the Board, applied Labor Law § 861-c, part of the Construction Industry Fair Play Act, which presumes an employment relationship unless specific criteria for an independent contractor are met. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that T&H failed to rebut this presumption because it did not establish that the drywallers owned the capital goods (drywall), a requirement under the separate business entity test.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawDrywall InstallersStatutory PresumptionABC TestSeparate Business EntityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. East 87th & 88th Street Contracting Co.

This case addresses a motion to set aside a $75,000 verdict, focusing on the interpretation of the 1969 amendment to Labor Law section 241 concerning general contractors' liability for construction worker injuries. The plaintiff, injured in 1971 while working for a subcontractor, sued the general contractor, who then sought indemnification from the subcontractor-employer. The court analyzed conflicting appellate decisions regarding whether the amendment eliminated the requirement to establish the general contractor's active control over the work. Ultimately, the court concluded that the law regarding control remains unchanged and set aside the verdict, dismissing the complaints. The decision also delved into policy considerations concerning workmen's compensation as the exclusive remedy against employers and incentives for workplace safety.

Labor Law § 241General Contractor LiabilityConstruction Worker InjurySubcontractor IndemnificationWorkmen's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationAppellate Division ConflictSafety RegulationsTort ActionEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.G.M. Insulation, Inc. v. Gardner

R-J Taylor General Contractors, Inc. and its subcontractors challenged a determination by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Public Work, which found their fire station construction project subject to prevailing wage requirements under Labor Law § 220. The Bureau concluded that the Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD), despite being a not-for-profit corporation, functioned as a municipal department, and the fire station construction was a public work project. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this determination. The court affirmed the Department of Labor's finding, concluding there was substantial evidence that BVFD was the functional equivalent of a municipal corporation and that the project served a public benefit. Consequently, the prevailing wage requirements were applicable, and the petition was dismissed.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Work ProjectMunicipal CorporationFire Protection ServicesNot-for-Profit CorporationLabor Law § 220CPLR Article 78Functional EquivalencyState Environmental Quality Review ActConstruction Contract
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Dressmakers Joint Council, International Ladies Garment Workers Union

This case involves a petition for a temporary injunction filed by the acting Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against the Dressmakers Joint Council, International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU). The NLRB sought to enjoin the union from picketing Newport Miss, Inc. (Newport) following a complaint that the union was engaging in an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(b)(7)(C) of the National Labor Relations Act. The union argued that its picketing had lawful objectives, including protesting an employee discharge and informing the public about Newport's substandard wages, and denied any current organizing interest. The court found that the Regional Director had reasonable grounds to believe the union's picketing had an unlawful objective of compelling recognition or employee union membership, causing irreparable injury to Newport and its contractors. Consequently, the court granted the temporary injunction against the union's picketing for 60 days or until the NLRB determines the merits of the pending charge.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingNational Labor Relations ActUnion OrganizingSecondary BoycottNLRB EnforcementEmployer RightsLabor Dispute
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 1998

Mills v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Plaintiff, a telephone linesman employed by Contel, suffered an electrical shock injury while working on a utility pole, leading him to sue Smith & Smith Contractors, Inc. and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NIMO) under various Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court's order denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the court modified the order by granting summary judgment to Smith & Smith Contractors, Inc., dismissing all Labor Law claims against them, as they were not deemed an owner, general contractor, or supervisor of the plaintiff's work. However, a common-law negligence claim against Smith remains. The court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion against NIMO, citing factual questions about whether the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker. The court also affirmed the denial of NIMO's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, accepting the belatedly cited safety regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.16. Finally, the court rejected NIMO's argument that the action was precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions based on a purported joint venture. The order was modified to dismiss the Labor Law claims against Smith & Smith Contractors, Inc. and otherwise affirmed.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Recalcitrant WorkerSummary JudgmentUtility Pole AccidentElectrical ShockConstruction AccidentJoint Venture DefenseNegligenceDuty to Supervise
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 8,178 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