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

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Chirino v. Sanitary Controls, Inc.

This case concerns appeals from Workers’ Compensation Board decisions that upheld the State Insurance Fund's cancellation of a workers’ compensation policy for Sanitary Controls, Inc. due to nonpayment. The Fund sent a cancellation notice on November 23, 1976, effective December 11, 1976. Sanitary received it eight days before the effective date. Concurrently, Sanitary filed for bankruptcy, and a court order stayed proceedings against it but did not explicitly stop the policy cancellation. The appeals court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that service of cancellation is effective upon mailing, not receipt, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 54, subd 5, and that the bankruptcy filing did not negate Sanitary’s insurance obligations.

Policy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumBankruptcy LawService of NoticeInsurance LiabilityAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationEmployer ObligationsInsurer ObligationsBoard Decisions
References
4
Case No. 034765412M
Regular Panel Decision

McAtee v. Environmental Control Board of the Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, Darin E McAtee, sought to annul a New York City Environmental Control Board (ECB) determination that found him in violation of Administrative Code § 28-404.1 and imposed a $4,800 fine. The violation stemmed from a window washing company hired by McAtee, whose worker lacked a rigger's license. McAtee argued that the Administrative Code section was vague as applied to nonsupervisory homeowners and that New York Labor Law preempted local laws regarding window washers. The court found that the ECB's interpretation of the statute had no rational basis, as the code's language did not apply to homeowners who neither hoisted nor supervised the work. Consequently, the court granted McAtee's petition, annulled the ECB's determination, and dismissed the notice of violation.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationHomeowner LiabilityBuilding CodesRigger LicenseDue ProcessPreemptionNew York City
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Control Network Communications, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Plaintiff Control Network Communications, Inc. (CNC) initiated an action against defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 236, alleging breach of contract and fraud under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). CNC contended that Local 236 violated a 'most favored nations' clause in their collective bargaining agreement by offering more favorable terms to another employer, Adirondack Cabling. CNC's grievance was ultimately denied by the Labor Management Committee (LMC). The court granted Local 236's motion to dismiss, finding the LMC's decision on the breach of contract claim to be final and binding due to CNC's failure to timely petition for vacation. Additionally, the court ruled that CNC's fraud claim was preempted by the LMRA, as its resolution required interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Breach of contractFraud claimLabor Management Relations Act (LMRA)Most favored nations clauseCollective bargaining agreement (CBA)Grievance procedureMotion to dismissFederal preemptionLabor Management Committee (LMC)Final and binding determination
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02281
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Matter of Whiting-Turner Contr. Co. v. Environmental Control Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed a determination by the Environmental Control Board of the City of New York, which found Whiting-Turner Contracting Company in violation of New York City Building Code § BC 3301.2 and imposed a penalty of $2,400. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that Whiting-Turner was the general contractor and thus responsible for safety measures at a mall construction site, where a worker was injured. The court also upheld the Board's limitation of administrative appellate review to the record established before the hearing officer, as petitioner failed to show good cause for admitting new records after the hearing.

Building Code ViolationGeneral Contractor LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate DivisionEnvironmental Control BoardWork PermitSubstantial EvidenceRecord Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ibarra v. Equipment Control, Inc.

Roman Ibarra, an employee of Atlantic Waste Disposal, Inc., was injured by a bailing machine and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He then commenced a negligence and product liability action against the manufacturer, Equipment Control, Inc. Equipment Control, Inc. initiated a third-party action for contribution and indemnification against Atlantic and Empire State Recycling Corporation. Atlantic moved for summary judgment, asserting that the 1996 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 restricted its liability for contribution to cases involving a 'grave injury,' which it argued Ibarra had not sustained. The Supreme Court denied Atlantic's motion, but the appellate court reversed, finding the amended statute applicable, placing the burden of proving 'grave injury' on the third party, and concluding that Ibarra's loss of vision in one eye did not meet the statutory definition of a 'grave injury.' Consequently, all claims and cross claims against Atlantic were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LawContribution and IndemnificationGrave InjuryStatutory InterpretationProspective ApplicationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party ClaimsEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. 14 Civ. 6494(PAE)
Regular Panel Decision

Stone ex rel. Stone Family Trust v. Theatrical Investment Corp.

This opinion addresses the denial of a motion for reconsideration filed by Jon Platt and Theatrical Investment Corp. (TIC). TIC sought to overturn a previous court decision that confirmed an arbitration award favoring Sheldon Stone, Trustee for the Stone Family Trust (SFT), and denied TIC's motion to vacate the award. TIC based its motion for reconsideration on a two-year-old, unpublished New York Supreme Court decision that vacated an arbitration award due to an arbitrator appointing a receiver. The court denied reconsideration, asserting that an unpublished state lower court opinion is not controlling authority and distinguished the facts of the cited case concerning the nature of the appointed receiver, ultimately finding no new controlling or persuasive authority.

Arbitration AwardMotion for ReconsiderationFederal District CourtNew York LawControlling AuthorityUnpublished DecisionsReceivershipArbitral AuthorityCase PrecedentDenial of Motion
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03392
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

Matter of State of New York v. Anthony R.

This case concerns the appeal of an order civilly committing Anthony R. as a dangerous sex offender under Mental Hygiene Law article 10. Anthony R. had a history of sex offenses and prior confinement, followed by release under strict and intensive supervision and treatment (SIST). After a period of compliance, he violated SIST conditions due to changes in his medication and treatment. The Supreme Court ordered his recommitment based on these violations, including substance abuse and aggressive non-sexual behavior. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that the State failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Anthony R. is *presently unable* to control his sexual conduct. The court found no persuasive link between his non-sexual SIST violations and an inability to control sexual behavior. The case was remanded for a new commitment order, clarifying that Anthony R. requires continued strict and intensive supervision, but not confinement.

Mental Hygiene LawSex OffenderCivil CommitmentSISTMental AbnormalityDangerousness AssessmentControl BehaviorAppellate DivisionReversalRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vision Environmental Services Corp. v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection

The Appellate Division confirmed a determination by the Environmental Control Board, which found petitioners (an owner and a contractor) in violation of city asbestos regulations. The violations included failure to ensure workers wore protective gloves, maintain a proper ground-fault interrupter, provide adequate shower heads in the decontamination room, and ensure the shift supervisor wore proper protective clothing. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination, and affirmed that the owner was liable for the contractor's violations. The petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 was denied and dismissed.

Asbestos RegulationsEnvironmental ViolationsWorker SafetyProtective EquipmentOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityAdministrative ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingSubstantial EvidenceNew York City
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Power v. Crown Controls Corp.

Plaintiff James Power was severely injured when a forklift manufactured by defendant Crown Controls Corporation tipped over during his employment. Power admitted he had not read the operator's warning sign or manual, which contained warnings against carrying passengers and elevating without a safety platform. Crown moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Power's failure to read the warnings negated proximate causation for his claim of inadequate warning. The court acknowledged that generally, a plaintiff's failure to read a warning can rebut the presumption of causation, especially in non-workplace contexts. However, the court denied summary judgment, reasoning that in a workplace setting, a proper warning might have reached the plaintiff through his employer's officials or fellow workers, thus establishing a potential for proximate causation.

Products LiabilityForklift AccidentWarning LabelProximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityIndustrial AccidentNegligenceDuty to Warn
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,618 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