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

Jenkins v. Arcade Building Maintenance

Jenkins, an African American woman, sued her former employer and several individuals and entities (Initial Contract Serviced, Petar Dedovic, Argirre Lolovic, Arcade Building Maintenance, and Local 32B-32J Service Employees International Union) for alleged discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and gender, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. She claimed harassment and wrongful termination after filing a discrimination complaint in 1993. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, dismissing the § 1981 claims for lack of specific allegations of racial animus and finding gender discrimination not actionable under § 1981. It also dismissed the § 1985 conspiracy claim, ruling that a § 1981 employment discrimination claim cannot serve as its basis. The court further determined that events prior to May 1, 1995, were time-barred and the continuing violation doctrine did not apply due to conclusory allegations. Jenkins was granted leave to replead her First and Second Claims for Relief.

DiscriminationRetaliationConspiracy42 U.S.C. § 198142 U.S.C. § 1985Employment LawMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineRacial Discrimination
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2005

Hageman v. B & G Building Services, LLC

The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at a Home Depot store, initially sued Home Depot, and later commenced an action against B & G Building Services, LLC (Building) for personal injuries. Building cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was the plaintiff's employer and that the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law due to an alter ego or joint venturer relationship with the plaintiff's direct employers, the Electrical corporations. The Supreme Court granted Building's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was reversed; the appellate court determined that Building failed to provide sufficient proof to establish an alter ego or joint venturer relationship, which would legally prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with the personal injury action under the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityDemolition AccidentAppellate ReviewNassau CountyConstruction Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaughter v. American Building Maintenance Co.

Ellis L. Slaughter, a former employee of American Building Maintenance Co. of New York (ABM), moved for partial summary judgment on his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim and to dismiss ABM's affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. Slaughter was terminated by ABM due to excessive absences under a 'no fault' policy, stemming from recurring back pain, a condition known to ABM's predecessor. The court found that Slaughter's notice to ABM regarding his FMLA-qualifying leave was insufficient for summary judgment in his favor, as merely calling in sick did not adequately inform ABM of his FMLA-protected condition, and doctors' notes were provided with delay. However, the court granted Slaughter's motion to dismiss ABM's collateral estoppel defense, ruling that a prior arbitration decision, which upheld his termination for excessive absenteeism, did not preclude his federal statutory FMLA claim because the issues resolved were distinct and the arbitrator did not consider FMLA specifics. The motion for summary judgment was thus granted in part and denied in part.

FMLASummary Judgment MotionCollateral EstoppelAbsenteeism PolicyTermination of EmploymentBack InjuryMedical Leave NoticeLabor LawEmployee RightsPreclusive Effect of Arbitration
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Homan v. Gotham Building Maintenance Corp.

The claimant, a fireman for Gotham Building Maintenance Corporation, suffered an inguinal hernia in 1977 but did not file a workers' compensation claim until 1982 when surgery became necessary. The State Insurance Fund, the carrier, paid for the surgery in September 1983. At a hearing, the employer and carrier argued the claim was time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, as it was filed more than two years after the accident. However, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the carrier's payment for the surgery constituted an advance payment of compensation, thereby waiving the two-year limitation period. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing established precedent that such advance payments, even if made after the statutory period, waive the limitation, especially when timeliness was not disputed before payment.

Workers' CompensationLimitation PeriodAdvance PaymentWaiverMedical ExpensesHernia InjuryTimeliness of ClaimBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewState Insurance Fund
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04978
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Robles v. Taconic Mgt. Co., LLC

Edilberto Robles, a laborer, sustained head injuries from a closing freight elevator door and commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence against multiple entities involved in the building's management, operation, and his employment. The Supreme Court granted several motions for summary judgment. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It denied summary judgment to Taconic Management Company, LLC, Taconic Management Corp., 111 Chelsea, LLC, and Waldorf Carting Corporation on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding supervision and control and the alter ego defense. The court also denied summary judgment on indemnification claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and Waldorf Carting Corporation. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Taconic and Chelsea, and the dismissal of claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and New York Elevator & Electrical Corporation were affirmed.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentIndemnificationThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawAlter ego defensePremises liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pagan v. International Ladies Garment Workers Union

Plaintiff Matilda Pagan brought a personal injury action after slipping and falling on a hallway floor at premises leased by Local 23-25 International Ladies Garment Workers Union from 1710 Broadway Inc. Supreme Building Maintenance Corp. was the maintenance contractor responsible for the building. Plaintiff alleged that Supreme Building negligently swept the floor with an unknown chemical, creating a slippery condition on newly installed tiles. The Supreme Court initially denied Supreme Building's motion for summary judgment. However, this appellate court reversed the lower court's order, finding the plaintiff's allegations conclusory, self-serving, and highly speculative, without sufficient proof of negligence. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Supreme Building Maintenance Corp., and the complaint against it was dismissed. Additionally, an appeal from a separate judgment, which granted summary judgment to Local 23-25 and 1710 Broadway Inc., was dismissed because Supreme Building was not 'aggrieved' by that judgment.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentMaintenance NegligencePremises LiabilityAppellate ProcedureDismissal of ComplaintLack of EvidenceSpeculative AllegationsThird-Party Action
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Maintenance Service Resources, Inc.

The plaintiff was injured on March 3, 1995, after stepping into an opening in a raised floor at her office. The opening was made by Universal Builders & Developers Corp. workers at the request of Allied Exterminating workers, who were performing pest control services. Allied was hired by Maintenance Service Resources, Inc., which had a contract with HIP of Greater New York (plaintiff's employer) for maintenance and pest control. The plaintiff sued Maintenance, and Maintenance then filed a third-party complaint against Allied for contribution or indemnification. A jury found both Allied and Maintenance negligent, assigning 40% fault to Allied and 60% to Maintenance. The Supreme Court, Kings County, issued an interlocutory judgment based on this verdict. On appeal, the court found no rational basis for the jury's conclusion that Maintenance was negligent, as Maintenance did not own or occupy the office, nor did it have a comprehensive maintenance obligation or control over the work. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the interlocutory judgment and dismissed both the plaintiff's complaint against Maintenance and Maintenance's third-party complaint against Allied.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintContribution and IndemnificationJury VerdictFault ApportionmentContractual Obligation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tucker v. American Building Maintenance

Pro se plaintiff Augustine Tucker brought an action against his former and current employers, American Building Maintenance Company of New York, Inc. (ABM) and Collins Building Services (CBS), to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration, conducted under a collective bargaining agreement, denied Tucker's grievance regarding a change in his work shift and loss of overtime pay. Tucker alleged the award was arbitrary, fraudulent, and a product of collusion, and that his union attorney provided negligent representation. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Tucker lacked standing, failed to state a claim, and the action was untimely. The court granted the motion, finding Tucker did not provide sufficient facts to support claims of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, nor did he meet the rigorous standards under the Federal Arbitration Act to vacate an arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissFederal Arbitration ActPro Se LitigationWorkplace DisputeOvertime PayWork Shift Change
References
22
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08317 [145 AD3d 506]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2016

Burgos v. Premiere Properties, Inc.

Joaquin Burgos, a building porter, sustained injuries after tripping over a tool bag on a stairway. He sued Premiere Properties, Inc., the building management company, alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court denied Premiere's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial. The court found issues of fact regarding Premiere's potential liability as a statutory agent under Labor Law § 200 due to its extensive control over the construction site, as well as whether Premiere had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) were deemed abandoned.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 200Statutory AgentSummary Judgment DenialTrip and FallSafe Place to WorkManagement Company LiabilityAppellate Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Hyatt Corp.

The plaintiff initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries after slipping and falling on a wet door mat at the Grand Hyatt Hotel. She sued the hotel owners and two contractors, Harvard Maintenance, Inc., and Platinum Maintenance Services Corp. The defendants Harvard and Platinum moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Harvard and Platinum established, prima facie, that they did not assume a comprehensive and exclusive maintenance obligation and did not launch a force or instrumentality of harm, thus owing no duty of care to the plaintiff.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractor LiabilityDuty of CareSnow RemovalSlip and FallMaintenance AgreementAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 8,388 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