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

Uto v. Job Site Services Inc.

Plaintiffs Paulino Uto, Jose Edwin Lopez, and Jose Aas, former employees of Job Site Services Inc. (JSS), filed a collective action against JSS and its owner, John O'Shea. They allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, claiming unpaid overtime, partial payment for hours worked, and unpaid minimum wage. The plaintiffs sought a protective order against defendants' discovery requests for social security numbers and income tax returns, arguing irrelevance and potential prejudice regarding their immigration status. Defendants contended the information was necessary for an "unclean hands" defense, implying the plaintiffs were involved in a tax evasion scheme. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that immigration status and social security numbers are generally undiscoverable in FLSA cases due to irrelevance and the risk of intimidation or deportation. Furthermore, the court determined that tax returns were not relevant and lacked a compelling need for disclosure, and the "unclean hands" defense was inapplicable as the plaintiffs' claims were legal, not equitable.

Protective OrderDiscovery DisputeImmigration StatusFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawUnclean Hands DefenseSocial Security NumbersIncome Tax ReturnsWage and Hour
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. 342 Property LLC

Defendant Flintlock Construction Services, LLC, a general contractor, hired Site Safety for site safety management. An unnamed plaintiff suffered an accident, leading to claims against Site Safety, including under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, as well as contractual indemnification claims by Flintlock. Site Safety moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked control over the work site. The court found that Site Safety's role was primarily advisory, with limited authority to stop unsafe work, and thus it lacked the necessary control to incur liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. Additionally, the court dismissed Flintlock's contractual indemnification claim, noting the absence of evidence of negligence by Site Safety, which was a prerequisite for indemnification under their contract. The motion court's decision granting summary judgment to Site Safety was affirmed on appeal.

Summary JudgmentSite Safety ManagementGeneral Contractor LiabilityContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnityLabor Law § 200Negligence ClaimsControl of Work SiteAppellate DecisionConstruction Accident
References
10
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06668
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2025

Rivera v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

Plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy gang box into a truck. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division modified this decision, denying summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and reinstating it. Furthermore, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against specific defendants (Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC, Delancey Street Associates, LLC, and T.G. Nickel & Associates, LLC), while otherwise affirming the lower court's order. The court also noted a contradiction in pleadings regarding ownership by one of the defendants, Delancey Street Associates, LLC.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityAppellate DivisionGang Box InjuryConstruction AccidentPleading ContradictionOwner LiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03353 [239 AD3d 688]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2025

Vindell v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Deylis Vindell, an employee, was injured at a construction site while removing wood in a muddy, water-filled excavation, causing him to fall. He sued the owners, construction manager, and a subcontractor, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and a portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the decision. It reinstated the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing conflicting evidence regarding the water's source and whether the plaintiff was hired to remedy that specific defect. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), finding it inapplicable as the plaintiff did not slip or trip and was not using a surface covered by the code.

Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentConstruction Site AccidentMuddy ConditionsExcavation WorkIndustrial Code Violation12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)Appellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05730
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Accadia Site Contr., Inc. v. Erie County Med. Ctr. Corp.

Petitioner, Accadia Site Contracting, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against respondent Erie County Medical Center Corporation. The dispute arose after respondent disqualified petitioner's bid for a parking lot expansion project, citing failure to meet utilization requirements for minority, women, and service-disabled veteran-owned business enterprises under Executive Law § 313. Petitioner's subsequent request for an administrative hearing was dismissed by respondent. Petitioner sought to annul this determination and compel a hearing in the Appellate Division. The Court dismissed the petition due to lack of original subject matter jurisdiction, clarifying that Executive Law § 313 (5) (c) only grants jurisdiction to review a final administrative determination made *after* a hearing, not to compel a hearing.

Bid disqualificationAdministrative hearingSubject matter jurisdictionAppellate DivisionExecutive LawCPLR Article 78Public benefit corporationUtilization planNonresponsive bidMinority business enterprises
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2001

Steiner v. Benroal Realty Associates, L.P.

The injured plaintiff, a sanitation worker, suffered a knee injury after stepping on a garbage bag while attempting to hook a dumpster. The plaintiffs initiated legal action against the property owner and site manager, alleging the existence of a dangerous and defective condition on the premises. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. This appellate court subsequently affirmed that decision, ruling that a defendant is not liable when a worker, aware of obvious employment hazards and possessing resources for safe conduct, performs the job incautiously.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySanitation WorkerObvious HazardAssumption of RiskAppellate DecisionNassau CountyKnee InjuryDangerous Condition
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Teles v. Westbury S & S Concrete Inc.

Claimant's errand was considered complete upon returning the injured worker to the job site. The judge dissents from the majority, arguing that the subsequent homeward journey was a personal activity and not implicitly required as part of the errand, thus falling outside the scope of employment. The judge emphasizes that the timing of the claimant's return to the job site was fortuitous and should not alter the compensability of the homeward trip. Therefore, the dissenting judge believes the claim should be dismissed as the journey was not an integral part of the initial employment-related errand.

scope of employmentworkers' compensationdissenting opinionpersonal activityhomeward journeycompensabilityerrand completionjob site returnclaim dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1998

Claim of Carpio v. R & J Insulation Co.

On January 23, 1995, a claimant was injured by a car while walking to an asbestos removal job site, prior to commencing work. The Workers' Compensation Board granted benefits, ruling the claimant an 'outside employee' and his injury compensable as arising out of and in the course of employment. The employer and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's employment involved traveling to various job sites without a fixed work location, thereby qualifying him as an outside employee. Consequently, the injury sustained during travel was deemed compensable under workers' compensation law.

Workers' CompensationOutside EmployeeTravel to WorkCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentNo Fixed Work SiteAsbestos Removal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,003 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