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

Plumbing Industry Board, Plumbing Local Union No. 1 v. L & L Masons, Inc.

Plaintiff Plumbing Industry Board (PIB) sued E.W. Howell and American Home Assurance Construction Co., Inc., seeking unpaid fringe benefit contributions under New York's Lien Law and as a third-party beneficiary to a contract. The defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted PIB's state law claims and moved for summary judgment. PIB cross-moved for a remand to state court. The court determined that ERISA preempted both New York Lien Law § 5 and PIB's common law contract claims, ruling that the Lien Law created an obligation not permitted under ERISA and the contract claim created a new theory of recovery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied PIB's motion to remand, and dismissed all claims.

ERISA pre-emptionNew York Lien LawFringe benefit contributionsSummary judgmentThird-party beneficiary contractCollective bargaining agreementEmployee benefit planSurety bondSubcontractor defaultFederal jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. ADJ10679914
Regular
Mar 05, 2018

Juan Torres vs. Ganalix Plumbing Repair, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the administrative law judge's decision, finding that applicant Juan Torres sustained a back injury arising out of and occurring during the course of employment with Ganalix Plumbing Repair. The Board disagreed with the judge's finding of no injury based solely on applicant's credibility, noting that three defense witnesses corroborated an event occurred, and medical records documented back pain shortly after the fall. The Board also acknowledged applicant's delay in reporting and the employer's lack of workers' compensation insurance, but ultimately found sufficient evidence for a compensable back injury.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDJuan TorresGANALIX PLUMBING REPAIRUNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUNDFindings and OrderPetition for Reconsiderationadministrative law judgeWCJinjury arising out of and occurring during the course of employmentLabor Code section 5402(b)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co.

This case addresses whether municipal vessels qualify as "public works" under Labor Law § 220 and Article I, § 17 of the New York State Constitution, thereby mandating prevailing wages for workers involved in their construction, maintenance, or repair. Plaintiffs, employees of Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., sued their employer and its sureties, asserting that they were third-party beneficiaries to contracts between Caddell and New York City agencies for work on various municipal vessels, including Staten Island Ferries and fireboats. The lower courts had dismissed the complaint, citing prior precedent, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Court established a new three-prong test for determining if a project is a "public work": (1) a public agency must be a party to a contract involving laborers, (2) the contract must involve construction-like labor paid by public funds, and (3) the primary objective of the work must benefit the general public. Applying this test, the Court concluded that municipal vessels serving the general public's use or benefit are indeed "public works," thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Public works doctrinePrevailing wage lawLabor LawState Constitutional LawMunicipal vesselsStaten Island FerryFireboatsPublic benefitConstruction laborPublic funds
References
18
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00606 [191 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Pisarski v. Accurate Plumbing & Heating Co.

Claimant Michael Pisarski established a workers' compensation claim for occupational bilateral knee and shoulder injuries after retiring as a union plumber. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately set the date of disablement as July 12, 2016, and a Worker's Compensation Law Judge ruled Norguard Insurance Company, which covered the employer during Pisarski's last employment, was the liable carrier, as no active policy was found on the disablement date. Norguard appealed, distinguishing its case from Matter of Cammarata, where the employer had ceased business. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred by not determining the business status of Accurate Plumbing and Heating Co. on the date of disablement. This determination is crucial to establish whether Accurate Plumbing was required to maintain an insurance policy or if the Uninsured Employers Fund should be responsible. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDate of DisablementInsurance Carrier LiabilityUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewRemittalBusiness Status DeterminationPolicy CoverageKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp.

The Plaintiffs, comprising ERISA funds and their trustees, sued Delta Plumbing and Heating Corporation for delinquent fringe benefits and later added New York Surety Company as a defendant on its bond. Following Delta's bankruptcy, New York Surety became the sole defendant and moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant argued that a surety is not an 'employer' under ERISA and that the court lacked pendent party jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the 'plain meaning' of ERISA's definition of 'employer' could extend to a surety that acts in the interest of an employer by guaranteeing contributions. Furthermore, the court found that under the legal framework applicable to this pre-1990 action, ERISA's statutory language did not confer pendent party jurisdiction.

ERISA EnforcementSurety LiabilityDelinquent ContributionsSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionCollective BargainingMultiemployer Pension PlansEmployee Benefits SecurityFederal Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02783
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

Cantalupo v. Arco Plumbing & Heating, Inc.

Paul Cantalupo, an injured worker, and his wife, suing derivatively, commenced a personal injury action against Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., and others. Cantalupo was injured while performing air conditioning services when an unsecured 500-pound condenser head fell on his leg. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Chase's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment to Chase for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, thereby dismissing it. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and common-law negligence claims, citing triable issues of fact regarding whether Cantalupo was engaged in repair work, whether Chase had notice of a dangerous condition, and whether Cantalupo was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionConstruction Site SafetyWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityRoutine Maintenance
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. (insurer) against Coastal Dry Dock and Repair Corp. (insured) regarding unpaid retrospective premiums on a workers' compensation policy. The insurer sought to recover additional premiums calculated based on the insured's loss record, as stipulated by a 'Retrospective Premium Endorsement.' The defendant raised multiple defenses and counterclaims, alleging improper calculations, misrepresentation, and mishandling of claims. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the defendant's opposition, primarily an attorney's affidavit lacking personal knowledge, was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court found the defendant's defenses and counterclaims legally insufficient, affirming the insurer's contractual right to negotiate and settle claims.

Workers' Compensation PolicyRetrospective PremiumSummary JudgmentContract DisputeInsurance LawAppellate ReviewAffidavit SufficiencyEvidentiary FactsClaims SettlementPolicy Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01871 [236 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Mondrangon v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.

Plaintiff Adan Mondrangon initiated an action against The Trustees of Columbia University after allegedly tripping over plumber's net and pipes in the basement of a university building. Columbia University subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp., their plumbing contractor, seeking indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, attributing responsibility for the hazardous condition to Absolute. Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp. moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, presenting evidence that their recent work did not involve the materials cited. However, the court found triable issues of fact arising from conflicting deposition testimonies, particularly concerning whether Absolute had worked on the basement project and could have been the source of the materials. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying Absolute's motion for summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, concluding that credibility issues were for a jury to determine.

Premises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentindemnificationbreach of contractthird-party claimconflicting testimonytriable issues of factAppellate DivisionNew York courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2013

Callari ex rel. Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Callari and opt-in plaintiff George Ruggiero brought a collective action against Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc. (BPS) and co-executors of Richard Blackman's estate, alleging unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Callari was an exempt employee and Ruggiero's claims were time-barred or waived. The Court granted summary judgment against Ruggiero's FLSA claim due to waiver but allowed his NYLL claim to proceed. Callari's FLSA claim survived, as the Court found genuine issues of material fact regarding his exempt employee status. A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs was denied, affirming the prior rulings.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawOvertime WagesExempt Employee StatusSummary JudgmentMotion for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsCollective ActionAssistant Manager Duties
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 467 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