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. ADJ8386118
Regular
Jan 04, 2013

RALPH GONZALES vs. PURELY CLEAN POOLS, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an applicant, Ralph Gonzales, and defendants Purely Clean Pools and Preferred Employers Insurance. A petition for removal was filed by a party in this matter. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew the petition for removal. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the petition, and no further action will be taken.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPurely Clean PoolsPreferred Employers InsuranceADJ8386118Oakland District OfficeAlfonso J. MoresiRonnie G. Caplane
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2009

Kilmetis v. Creative Pool & Spa, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Complete Construction Alternatives, Inc., sustained personal injuries on October 3, 2006, after falling from a scaffold while finishing siding on a garage roof. He initiated a personal injury action against Creative Pool and Spa, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and asserting Creative Pool was the general contractor. The Supreme Court of Nassau County denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court finding that Creative Pool was neither a general contractor nor an agent for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) concerning the plaintiff's work. This decision was based on evidence that Creative Pool did not supervise or control the plaintiff's work, provided no equipment, and was not present at the site on the accident date.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityAgent LiabilityAppellate ReviewNew York LawWorkplace Accident
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Folksamerica Reinsurance Co. Ex Rel. Christiana General Insurance Co. of New York v. Clean Water of New York, Inc.

Folksamerica Reinsurance Company, as successor to Christiana General Insurance Company, sought a declaratory judgment against Clean Water of New York, Inc., seeking to be relieved of its obligation to defend or indemnify Clean Water in a personal injury lawsuit. The underlying suit stemmed from an injury sustained by Milton Rivera while cleaning an ocean-going vessel in New York Harbor. The central legal question for the federal court was whether it possessed admiralty jurisdiction, which hinged on whether the insurance policy was a 'maritime' contract. The court concluded that the primary Section I of the policy, a comprehensive general liability section, lacked maritime character, and the policy as a whole was not purely maritime. Consequently, as the claim did not arise under the potentially maritime Section II, and exceptions for mixed contracts did not apply, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawInsurance ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionComprehensive General LiabilityMarine InsuranceContract InterpretationFederal CourtShip Cleaning
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. v. Pross

This case concerns a breach of contract action for swimming pool construction. The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that one of the plaintiff corporations, Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., lacked the required Nassau County home improvement license. Plaintiffs, Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. and Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., both owned by Jairo Arango, operated together, with Best Quality holding the necessary license. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that denying payment would be an excessive penalty given that Best Quality was licensed, aligning with the rationale of Marraccini v Ryan. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint to include the licensing details for Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc.

Home Improvement LicenseCorporate LiabilityBreach of ContractMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintNassau County Administrative CodeCPLR 3015(e)Licensing RequirementsCorporate VeilSubstantial Compliance
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union v. Bradley Cleaning Contractors, Inc.

This case involves Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Union) petitioning to confirm an arbitration award against Bradley Cleaning Contractors, Inc. (Bradley). Bradley sought to vacate, remand, or stay the award's enforcement, arguing for deference to a pending NLRB unit clarification petition. The court, noting the NLRB's decision not to intervene, proceeded to address the merits. It found Bradley's challenges to the arbitrator's award, concerning damages for a period prior to the 1981 agreement and inclusion of pension and welfare fund contributions, to be meritless. The court concluded the arbitrator acted within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, and therefore confirmed the award. Enforcement was stayed for ten days to allow Bradley to arrange collateral.

Arbitration AwardUnion DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActNLRB JurisdictionStay of EnforcementCollateral RequirementJudicial ReviewArbitration Confirmation
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01020 [235 AD3d 1124]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2025

Matter of Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. v. Town of Moreau Planning Bd.

The case involves an appeal by Clean Air Action Network of Glens Falls, Inc. against the Town of Moreau Planning Board, Raymond Apy, and Saratoga Biochar Solutions, LLC. The appeal challenged a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to annul the Planning Board's negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and its approval of a site plan for a biosolids remediation and fertilizer processing facility. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Planning Board failed to take a 'hard look' at the project's potential adverse impacts, particularly concerning hazardous air pollutant emissions. The court concluded that the Planning Board's unexplained deference to DEC permitting standards without a reasoned elaboration for its negative declaration was arbitrary and capricious, thus granting the petition and remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Environmental ImpactState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Planning Board DeterminationHazardous Air PollutantsBiosolids RemediationSite Plan ApprovalNegative Declaration RescissionArbitrary and CapriciousAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kittelstad v. Losco Group, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff's claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, and common-law negligence. The court addressed whether Jacobs and Clean Air were statutory agents of the property owner (the State). Jacobs's contractual obligations and superintendent's authority indicated comprehensive oversight, raising a question of fact regarding its agency status. Clean Air also retained significant supervisory authority over its subcontractor, Campbell, despite its claims to the contrary, thus establishing a question of fact regarding its control. Additionally, the court found Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (b) applicable and held that the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Clean Air should not have been dismissed due to questions of fact concerning dangerous conditions or notice. Consequently, Clean Air was not entitled to summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Campbell.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawStatutory AgentSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentSupervisory AuthorityNegligenceIndemnificationIssues of Fact
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2003

Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401 (K) Retirement Funds v. Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing

The plaintiffs, Local 8A-28A Welfare and 401(k) Retirement Funds, sued defendant Golden Eagles Architectural Metal Cleaning and Refinishing, alleging violations of ERISA Section 515 and a collective bargaining agreement for failing to submit to an audit. Golden Eagles moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and the requirement for arbitration. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied the motion, finding that personal jurisdiction existed over Golden Eagles due to ERISA's nationwide service of process provision, and venue was proper in the Southern District of New York as the Funds are administered there. Furthermore, the court determined that the Local 8A-28A Funds, as independent non-signatory entities, were not bound by the arbitration clause present in the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the employer. Consequently, Golden Eagles' motion to dismiss was denied.

ERISAPersonal JurisdictionVenueArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee BenefitsTrust FundsMotion to DismissNationwide Service of ProcessMinimum Contacts
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge Smith argues that Labor Law § 196-d, which prohibits employers from demanding or accepting parts of employee gratuities, is inapplicable to disputes over how a common tip pool is shared among employees. The dissent contends that the statute's purpose is to prevent employers from retaining tips meant for employees, not to regulate the internal distribution of pooled tips. Drawing a distinction from federal law and referencing a similar California case, Jou Chau v Starbucks Corp., the judge concludes that extending the statute to tip pooling among employees unnecessarily complicates the law and creates avenues for excessive regulation and litigation, despite agreeing with the majority's outcome in favor of Starbucks.

tip poolingLabor Law § 196-dgratuitieswage disputesemployer responsibilityemployee rightsstatutory interpretationdissenting opinionNew York lawCalifornia Labor Code
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 386 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