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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campbell v. Interstate Materials Corporation

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peckham v. Peckham Materials Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Peckham Materials Corporation, in a wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, John S. Peckham, was killed in a helicopter crash while a passenger in a company-owned helicopter. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, striking the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The Appellate Division reversed the order, holding that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of compensation benefits. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court with instructions to defer the motion's disposition until the Workers' Compensation Board makes a final determination regarding the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHelicopter AccidentEmployer LiabilityJudicial DeferenceRemittalEstate Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MG Building Materials, Ltd. v. Paychex, Inc.

This case involves plaintiffs MG Building Materials, Ltd. and Excellence Mortgage, Ltd. against Paychex, Inc., initially filed in Texas state court for breach of contract and other claims. The action, originally based on diversity jurisdiction, was removed by Paychex to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) after plaintiffs filed a third amended petition adding class claims. This amendment transformed the case significantly, increasing the scope to thousands of putative class members and billions in damages, alleging a nationwide fraudulent scheme by Paychex. Plaintiffs sought to remand the case to state court, arguing Paychex's removal was untimely. The court, however, denied the motion to remand, applying the "revival exception" to the thirty-day removal rule, concluding that the third amended petition fundamentally altered the nature of the lawsuit, thereby creating a new opportunity for removal.

Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)Removal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionRevival ExceptionMotion to RemandAmended PleadingFraud ClaimsBreach of ContractArbitration ClauseFederal Procedure
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff, a subcontractor for Massa Construction, Inc., initiated an action against defendant surety to secure payment on a labor and materials bond after Massa ceased payments due to alleged breaches by plaintiff. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, asserting plaintiff materially breached its subcontract by failing to make pension contributions, provide releases, and obtain a separate payment bond. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of compliance and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a material breach. The court noted that alleged non-payments to suppliers only affected the subcontract price, not Massa's obligation to continue performance, and found no requirement for plaintiff to pay pension contributions to the Iron Workers District Council or obtain a separate payment bond from glaziers unions.

SubcontractorSurety BondPublic Improvement ProjectLabor and Materials BondPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractPension ContributionsPayment ObligationsGlaziers Unions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riedel v. Steger Material Handling Co.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding evidence that J.G.M. Installation & Service, Inc. created the accident condition and Steger Material Handling Co., Inc. was responsible for its subcontractor's negligence. The court also correctly denied the plaintiff's motion to pierce Steger Material's corporate veil and add Richard Steger as a defendant, asserting that insufficient corporate assets do not justify disregarding the corporate form. However, the court erred by granting the plaintiff's motion for additional causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), as the plaintiff was not a protected worker under these statutes. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by denying that portion of the plaintiff's motion, while the plaintiff's remaining contention was not preserved for review.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseCorporate VeilLabor LawSubcontractor NegligenceAppellate ReviewMotion to Amend ComplaintProtected WorkersVicarious LiabilityErie County Supreme Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rought v. Price Chopper Operating Co.

This dissenting opinion argues against applying material hoisting regulations to the process of installing electrical wires by pulling them through conduit. The dissent asserts there is no evidence that the equipment used was lifting or suspending the wires. It highlights that the forklift was used to apply force to pull wires through a 90-degree angle, not to raise them. The opinion refers to the plaintiff's deposition, which clarified that the forklift applied force only after the wire was pushed to the turn, leading to tension that caused the wire to recoil when the rope broke. The dissent concludes that the equipment did not constitute "material hoisting equipment" under 12 NYCRR subpart 23-6, and therefore, the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Stein, J., concurred.

material hoistingelectrical wiresforkliftconduit installationLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)summary judgmentdissenting opinionworkers protectionsafety regulations
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06429
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2017

Estate of Goldstein v. Kingston

The Estate of Alter A. Goldstein brought a wrongful death action after Alter A. Goldstein sustained fatal injuries when struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Debbie Miketta and owned by defendant Jonathan Kingston. The accident occurred when Miketta was reversing her vehicle on a one-way street due to workers from defendant Forest Hills Garden Corporation (FHGC) performing work. The Supreme Court granted FHGC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that FHGC's conduct merely created the condition for the accident and was not a proximate cause. The Court concluded that Miketta's decision to reverse her vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the decedent's injuries, and consequently dismissed the separate appeal by Kingston and Miketta.

Wrongful deathSummary judgmentNegligenceProximate causeMotor vehicle accidentAppellate reviewAffirmed decisionDismissed appealLiabilityEstate law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gherardi v. City of New York

The court addresses the scope of a contractor's obligation under New York Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically focusing on what constitutes "constructing" and "alteration" activities. It clarifies that extensive wiring installation on multiple floors of a public school qualifies as an "alteration," thereby triggering the protective provisions of the statute. Additionally, the decision confirms that the statute's protection extends to areas like entrance ramps used for ingress, egress, and material delivery, even if not the immediate work area. The court emphasizes that the instrumentality causing injury does not necessarily need to be erected for worker use to fall under the statute's purview.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyAlteration WorkScaffolding LawNew YorkWork Area ProtectionContractor LiabilityWorker Protection
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 1990

Sternklar v. 19 E. 80th St. Associates

Tenants Theodore Sternklar and Adrienne Wincor-Sternklar leased a rent-stabilized apartment from landlord 19 E. 80th St. Associates. They undertook various alterations with the landlord's permission. When the landlord required window replacement, tenants faced significant costs to remove and reinstall their custom items. Tenants sought a declaratory judgment to define the parties' rights and obligations. The lower court granted summary judgment to the landlord, dismissing the complaint and granting counterclaims for unauthorized renovations. The appellate court reversed, finding numerous material issues of fact regarding the landlord's approval of alterations, the nature of certain installations, and the status of items claimed as unauthorized, thus precluding summary judgment.

Rent stabilizationApartment alterationsSummary judgmentFactual disputesLease agreementDeclaratory judgmentLandlord-tenant disputeAppellate reviewNew York lawProperty dispute
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,502 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