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
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

Arteaga v. ISS Quality Service

Claimant, a maintenance worker hired to replace striking employees of ISS Quality Service, was assaulted and sustained injuries. A dispute arose regarding whether claimant was an employee of ISS or Contemporary Graphics Group (CGG), a temporary staffing agency. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found claimant solely employed by CGG, but the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this, concluding claimant was a general employee of CGG and a special employee of ISS, apportioning liability equally. ISS and its carrier appealed the special employment designation as irrational, but the Board's decision was affirmed.

Employer-Employee RelationshipSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LiabilityApportionment of LiabilityTemporary Staffing AgencyAssault in EmploymentSubstantial EvidenceBoard Decision ReviewJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01643
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Quality Building Construction, LLC v. Jagiello Construction Corp.

This case concerns an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and discharge a bond. Jagiello Construction Corp. appealed an order that denied its cross-petition to vacate an arbitration award, which Quality Building Construction, LLC sought to confirm. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The Court held that Jagiello failed to meet its "heavy burden" to establish grounds for vacatur under CPLR 7511(b)(1). It found that Jagiello had sufficient notice of the arbitration hearing and was not prejudiced by a scrivener's error in the demand for arbitration that misidentified the claimant.

ArbitrationAward ConfirmationVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate PracticeDue ProcessNotice RequirementsScrivener's ErrorPublic Policy ExceptionArbitrator Authority
References
9
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

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

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
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

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06839 [165 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Mitchell v. Eaton's Trucking Serv., Inc.

Claimant James Mitchell, a tractor truck driver, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries to his right hand, wrist, arm, and shoulder, identifying both Eaton's Trucking Service, Inc. (Eaton) and Quality Carrier's, Inc. (Quality) as his employers. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Eaton was Mitchell's general employer and Quality was his special employer, making both 50% liable for benefits. Quality appealed this decision, challenging the special employment finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Mitchell was a special employee of Quality, considering factors such as control over work, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, and the nature of the work arrangement between Eaton and Quality.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTractor Truck DriverOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delishi v. Property Owner USA LLC

Plaintiff Haxhi Delishi sued multiple defendants after he slipped and fell at a construction site in New York County on November 14, 2005, while working for Collins Building Services, Inc. He alleged negligence against the named defendants for causing or allowing the dangerous condition (a piece of cardboard covering a metal pipe) or failing to warn him. Several defendants, including Stateside Contracting Co., Inc., Jordan Daniels Electrical Contractors, Inc., Property Owner (USA), LLC, HSBC North America, Inc., and Jones Lang LaSalle Services, Inc., moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims against them. Third-party defendant Collins also moved for dismissal of Jones Lang's third-party complaint. The court, presided over by Justice Jack M. Battaglia, denied all motions for summary judgment, finding that none of the moving parties had established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, partly due to issues with inadmissible deposition testimony and insufficient evidence regarding creation of the condition or notice of it.

Slip and FallConstruction Site InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationContributionAdmissibility of Deposition TranscriptsDangerous Condition
References
66
Showing 1-10 of 8,053 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