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. 2019 NY Slip Op 04932
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Mendez v. Vardaris Tech, Inc.

Guido Mendez, a foreman, was injured by a falling light fixture during asbestos removal and sued the general contractor, Vardaris Tech, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding the defendant lacked control or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order, denying summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the defendant failed to demonstrate the inapplicability or non-violation of relevant Industrial Code provisions or that such violations were not a proximate cause of the accident.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAsbestos RemovalIndustrial Code ViolationsFalling Object InjuryGeneral Contractor Liability
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02600 [204 AD3d 1281]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Matter of Szymanski v. ABA Tech Indus., Inc.

The claimant, Andrezej Szymanski, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request for a late payment penalty from ABA Tech Industries, Inc. Szymanski had previously been awarded benefits for binaural hearing loss, but payment was delayed while the employer's carrier sought administrative review. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The court found that an application for Board review triggers a statutory stay of payment, and the carrier made the payment within 10 days of the Board's affirming decision, thus making the penalty unwarranted. The appeal was therefore denied.

Workers' Compensation LawLate Payment PenaltyStatutory StayBoard ReviewSchedule Loss of UseBinaural Hearing LossOccupational Disease ClaimAppellate DivisionTimely PaymentIndustrial Accident
References
12
Case No. CV-22-2146
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Matter of Leon v. Structure Tech N.Y., Inc.

Claimant, Jorge Leon, a construction laborer, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining injuries to his neck and back from a fall into a hole while carrying rebar. The employer, Structure Tech New York, Inc., and its carrier controverted the claim, raising issues of lack of notice and no compensable accident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and upholding the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility in resolving conflicting testimony.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryEmployment InjuriesCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceNotice of InjuryConstruction AccidentFall AccidentRebarNeck Injury
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06264
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

Matter of Plumbers Local Union No. 1 v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court decision dismissing a petition filed by Plumbers Local Union No. 1 and its business manager. The Union sought mandamus and declaratory relief to compel the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) to enforce gas, plumbing, and welding worker qualifications. The court found that the Union lacked standing, failing to demonstrate special damages different from the general community or a sufficient nexus to qualify for the public interest exception in mandamus proceedings. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the Union's arguments were unavailing.

StandingMandamusDeclaratory ReliefPublic Interest ExceptionGas Safety RegulationsPlumbing QualificationsWeldersAdministrative CodeFuel Gas CodeNew York City Department of Buildings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pineda v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.

This case addresses a dispute over wage payments to undocumented alien workers employed by Kel-Tech Construction, Inc. on public works projects. The plaintiffs, including Adeline Carpió and Jose Luis Zamora, sued Kel-Tech and its sureties, Reliance Insurance Company and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, for unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits, alleging a money-laundering scheme by Kel-Tech. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs' use of fraudulent documents to obtain employment barred their claims, and also moved to dismiss claims related to the ES. 24 project. The court had previously dismissed claims for ES. 24 and declined to enforce releases from two plaintiffs. This decision denies defendants' motion for summary judgment, asserting that New York's Labor Law, particularly Section 220, is not preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) concerning the payment of earned wages to undocumented workers. The court emphasizes public policy aims to ensure fair wages for all workers and identifies unresolved factual disputes regarding both plaintiffs' alleged fraudulent conduct and Kel-Tech's own compliance with IRCA and its alleged 'unclean hands' in the wage payment scheme. The court also denied dismissal of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims related to William Taft High School.

undocumented workersprevailing wageLabor Law Section 220Immigration Reform and Control Actsummary judgmentfraudulent documentationquantum meruitunjust enrichmentpublic works contractswage dispute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2002

Semi-Tech Litigation, LLC v. Bankers Trust Co.

This is an action brought by Semi-Tech Litigation LLC, an assignee formed under a Chapter 11 plan of liquidation for Semi-Tech Corporation, against Bankers Trust Company (BT). The plaintiff alleges that BT, as the indenture trustee for Semi-Tech notes, breached its obligations under the indenture, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), and its fiduciary duties by failing to adequately protect note holders and accepting deficient compliance certificates. BT moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, asserting that a bankruptcy entity cannot sue on behalf of third-party note holders, that TIA claims were not properly assigned, and that the assignments were void under New York's champerty statute. The Court denied BT's motion to dismiss. It found that BT's challenge to the assignment of claims from Record Date Note Holders was barred by res judicata due to a Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order. However, the Court indicated that determining when TIA claims accrued and the extent of proper assignment could not be resolved on the current record. The champerty defense was also rejected, as the court is hesitant to find an action champertous as a matter of law without clearer evidence of sole or primary intent to sue.

BankruptcyChapter 11 PlanLiquidationIndenture TrusteeTrust Indenture Act of 1939Breach of Fiduciary DutyStandingAssignment of ClaimsRes JudicataCollateral Estoppel
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1990

Paone v. Westwood Village

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action at a construction site. The injured worker and his wife initially sued Westwood Village (owner) and Holiday Management Associates, Inc. (general contractor). Westwood and Holiday then filed third-party complaints against Colonial Mechanical Co. (subcontractor) and High Tech Heating Co. (subcontractor and employer of the injured plaintiff). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted summary judgment to Colonial and High Tech, dismissing the third-party complaints. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Colonial and High Tech had no control over the work that caused the injury, thus absolving them of liability under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. The court emphasized that the duty to provide a safe workplace rests with the party having authority to control the injury-producing activity, in this instance, Holiday as the general contractor.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityControl of Work Site
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2005

Wysocki v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an action by construction workers seeking to recover prevailing wages under public works contracts from defendant Kel-Tech. The Supreme Court, New York County, entered an order on November 9, 2005, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify certain subclasses and to amend the complaint to add new class representatives. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The denial of subclass certification was based on the failure to demonstrate that Kel-Tech performed work on the projects, or that the named plaintiffs worked on them, or that an agreement requiring prevailing wages existed. The motion to amend the complaint was denied due to the plaintiffs' inability to show that the proposed individuals would adequately protect the interests of the excluded subclasses.

Prevailing wagesPublic works contractsClass actionSubclass certificationComplaint amendmentClass representativesAppellate reviewCPLR 901AffirmedConstruction workers
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PRO-TECH WELDING AND FABRICATION INC. v. Lajuett

Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc. sued its former employees and related corporations for patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract concerning its 'Sno Pusher' snow removal device and the '755 patent. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no infringement and patent invalidity, while Pro-Tech cross-moved to dismiss counterclaims. The core dispute revolved around whether defendants' 'boxed gusset' design infringed on the '755 patent's 'vertical reinforcing channels.' The court found no literal infringement, distinguishing 'channels' from 'boxed gussets' based on common meaning and prosecution history. It also rejected infringement under the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel, as the patentee had previously narrowed the claim scope during prosecution to distinguish prior art. As a result, the patent infringement claims (Counts I and II) were dismissed with prejudice, while state law claims were dismissed without prejudice for refiling in state court.

Patent InfringementTrade SecretsBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDoctrine of EquivalentsProsecution History EstoppelSnow Removal EquipmentSnow PusherBox PlowClaim Construction
References
52
Case No. 527550
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Ostrzycki v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

The claimant, Wladyslaw Ostrzycki, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled he failed to demonstrate an attachment to the labor market, leading to the suspension of his benefits. Ostrzycki had established a claim for benefits due to occupational disease from repetitive stress injuries. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found he demonstrated labor market attachment, the Board modified this, finding him partially disabled and not attached to the labor market as of August 3, 2017. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Ostrzycki did not diligently seek employment within his medical restrictions, which included a 'sedentary work' limitation, after August 3, 2017. The court noted his job applications did not consider his restrictions, and he did not fully engage with recommended services like English language classes.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentPartial DisabilitySedentary WorkOccupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuriesJob Search RequirementsMedical RestrictionsAppellate Division Third DepartmentBenefits Suspension
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 110 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