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. ADJ9001538
Regular
Sep 14, 2018

, PEDRO MONTELONGO vs. MC ROOFING CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a WCJ's decision denying sanctions and attorneys' fees against defendants MC Roofing Corporation and its insurer, SCIF. The applicant alleged bad faith conduct by MC Roofing's owner, Manuel Cuevas, and sought sanctions against him and SCIF, as well as attorney's fees from retroactive temporary total disability benefits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further investigate whether Cuevas is a defendant, whether his alleged misconduct can be imputed to MC Roofing, and if sanctions are appropriate. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the issue of sanctions against Cuevas.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPedro MontelongoMC Roofing CorporationState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings of FactSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith ConductAttorney Fees
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp.

Plaintiff Robert Striegel sought partial summary judgment against Hillcrest Heights Development Corporation under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) for injuries sustained from a fall while working on a sloped roof. Striegel, an employee of Sahlem's Roofing and Siding, slipped on a frost-covered sub-roof, fell, and slid down the roof, alleging that Hillcrest, as owner and general contractor, failed to provide safety devices. Defendants argued that the injury was from lifting or that the fall was onto the roof surface, not from an elevated height, citing White v Sperry Supply & Warehouse. The court distinguished White, finding that the sloped roof in this case made the fall directly related to gravity, thus falling within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the court granted Striegel partial summary judgment on liability and also granted Hillcrest a conditional judgment for common-law indemnification against Sahlem’s, finding no active negligence on Hillcrest's part.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationLabor LawElevated Work SiteGravity-Related HazardRoofingFall ProtectionPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters v. Roberts

The petitioners, John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters (Schepanski) and Prestige Roofing & Siding Co. (Prestige), sought judicial review of an order from the Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, dated November 13, 1986. The original order found Schepanski willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to 19 employees during a roofing project at Suffolk County public schools, resulting in $282,240.46 in underpayments, and assessed a civil penalty of $35,000. Prestige was also held liable for its subcontractor's (Schepanski's) failure. The court granted the petitions and annulled the Commissioner's order, remitting the matter for further proceedings. While acknowledging substantial evidence for willful non-payment and improper record-keeping, the court determined that the respondent's method for calculating underpaid wages and supplements lacked a rational basis. Specifically, the respondent failed to credit Schepanski for some payments made, used an incorrect last day of work, and made an irrational inference about the number of workers present. As a result, the assessed civil penalty must also be reconsidered.

Prevailing WageWage UnderpaymentLabor Law ViolationCivil PenaltyJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingSubcontractor LiabilityRecord KeepingRational BasisRemittal
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06327 [175 AD3d 1062]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Pelonero v. Sturm Roofing, LLC

Plaintiff Salvatore Pelonero commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Sturm Roofing, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall at a roofing site. The Supreme Court granted Pelonero's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed this order, denying the plaintiff's motion. The court found that Pelonero failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether he was a worker and whether Sturm Roofing, LLC was an owner or contractor liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Conflicting statements about how the accident occurred also raised an issue of fact. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked the necessary specific Industrial Code violations.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentRoofing WorkCredibility IssueProximate CauseSafety DevicesIndustrial CodeCommon-Law Negligence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweet v. Packaging Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of A Plus Environmental Services, was injured on October 19, 1995, while removing asbestos roofing for Monahan-Loughlin Inc., a subcontractor for Packaging Corporation of America. The injury occurred when a coworker slipped on wet asbestos fibers from previous rain, causing the full weight of a roof section to shift onto plaintiff. Plaintiff had previously complained about the slippery conditions without remedy. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6). Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, ruling that while the asbestos fibers were an integral part of the worksite, the precipitation causing them to be slippery was not, making the defendants' failure to remedy the condition actionable under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d).

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentSlippery ConditionsLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyAsbestos RemovalRoof WorkPersonal Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wensley v. Argonox Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Skyway Roofing of Troy, Inc., was injured during a reroofing project when a section of gypsum roof fell and stretched his arm. He sued Argonox Construction Corporation and Galesi Group, the contractors and owners' group, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241 (6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied dismissal of Labor Law claims but dismissed the negligence claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to the gravity-induced fall. However, it dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim for lack of specific regulation allegations and the Labor Law § 200 claim due to the dismissed common-law negligence. The court also affirmed the denial of Argonox's premature summary judgment motion against Skyway regarding indemnification.

Workers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceIndemnificationContributionSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewConstruction Site Safety
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2009

Johnson v. UniFirst Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Derrick Corporation, sustained injuries when his uniform, rented from UniFirst Corporation, caught fire. UniFirst, a defendant in the main personal injury action, filed a third-party complaint against Derrick for contractual indemnification. Derrick moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that its contract with UniFirst had expired at the time of the accident, thus barring indemnification under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied Derrick's motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and Derrick's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. The appellate court found UniFirst failed to provide statutory notice for automatic contract renewal under General Obligations Law § 5-903 (2).

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAutomatic Renewal ProvisionThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryUniform FireEmployer LiabilityStatutory Notice
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,885 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