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

John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters v. Roberts

The petitioners, John Schepanski Roofing & Gutters (Schepanski) and Prestige Roofing & Siding Co. (Prestige), sought judicial review of an order from the Commissioner of Labor of the State of New York, dated November 13, 1986. The original order found Schepanski willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to 19 employees during a roofing project at Suffolk County public schools, resulting in $282,240.46 in underpayments, and assessed a civil penalty of $35,000. Prestige was also held liable for its subcontractor's (Schepanski's) failure. The court granted the petitions and annulled the Commissioner's order, remitting the matter for further proceedings. While acknowledging substantial evidence for willful non-payment and improper record-keeping, the court determined that the respondent's method for calculating underpaid wages and supplements lacked a rational basis. Specifically, the respondent failed to credit Schepanski for some payments made, used an incorrect last day of work, and made an irrational inference about the number of workers present. As a result, the assessed civil penalty must also be reconsidered.

Prevailing WageWage UnderpaymentLabor Law ViolationCivil PenaltyJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingSubcontractor LiabilityRecord KeepingRational BasisRemittal
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06327 [175 AD3d 1062]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Pelonero v. Sturm Roofing, LLC

Plaintiff Salvatore Pelonero commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Sturm Roofing, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall at a roofing site. The Supreme Court granted Pelonero's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed this order, denying the plaintiff's motion. The court found that Pelonero failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether he was a worker and whether Sturm Roofing, LLC was an owner or contractor liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Conflicting statements about how the accident occurred also raised an issue of fact. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked the necessary specific Industrial Code violations.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentRoofing WorkCredibility IssueProximate CauseSafety DevicesIndustrial CodeCommon-Law Negligence
References
21
Case No. M2010-02544-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2011

Swift Roofing, Inc. v. State of Tennessee, Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development

Swift Roofing, Inc. appealed an administrative agency order affirming citations for workplace safety violations following a fatal accident. The Chancery Court had affirmed these citations. The Court of Appeals found that the administrative agency, the TOSHA Review Commission, failed to provide the statutorily required findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasons for its decision, which is essential for effective judicial review under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act. Consequently, the Court of Appeals vacated the order of the Chancery Court. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with instructions to the Chancery Court to remand to the Commission to issue a decision containing the necessary findings.

Workplace safetyFall protectionAdministrative agency reviewJudicial reviewOSHA standardsDue processFindings of factConclusions of lawRemandSummary judgment
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp.

Plaintiff Robert Striegel sought partial summary judgment against Hillcrest Heights Development Corporation under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) for injuries sustained from a fall while working on a sloped roof. Striegel, an employee of Sahlem's Roofing and Siding, slipped on a frost-covered sub-roof, fell, and slid down the roof, alleging that Hillcrest, as owner and general contractor, failed to provide safety devices. Defendants argued that the injury was from lifting or that the fall was onto the roof surface, not from an elevated height, citing White v Sperry Supply & Warehouse. The court distinguished White, finding that the sloped roof in this case made the fall directly related to gravity, thus falling within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the court granted Striegel partial summary judgment on liability and also granted Hillcrest a conditional judgment for common-law indemnification against Sahlem’s, finding no active negligence on Hillcrest's part.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationLabor LawElevated Work SiteGravity-Related HazardRoofingFall ProtectionPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03199
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2018

Wellington v. Christa Constr. LLC

Plaintiff Daniel Wellington, a masonry subcontractor employee, was injured when a tire rim fell from a roof, striking him on the head. The tire rim, placed by defendant Tower Roofing Company, Inc. for a safety barrier, fell due to windy conditions. Wellington and his spouse sued Tower Roofing and Christa Construction LLC (general contractor) for negligence and Labor Law violations. The Appellate Division determined that Tower Roofing was liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to secure the tire rim, which was considered a falling object that required securing. The court modified the lower court's order to grant plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on this issue and affirmed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification due to unresolved factual questions regarding negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFalling ObjectSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnificationNegligenceElevation Hazard
References
30
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04897
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2018

Bund v. Higgins

Plaintiff Ronald Bund, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from a roof while working for Raymond M. Devore, who was hired by defendants David P. Higgins and Linda M. Higgins to install a roof on their single-family home. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were exempt from Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) liability as one-family dwelling owners who did not direct or control the work. The Appellate Division agreed, finding that defendants, despite acting as general contractors by obtaining permits and purchasing materials, did not supervise or control the method and manner of plaintiff's work, as evidenced by their non-presence during the roofing work and Devore's responsibility for worker safety. The court also concluded that defendants were not liable under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200 because the alleged dangerous condition arose from the contractor's methods, and defendants exercised no supervisory control. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order denying summary judgment was reversed, and the complaint against David P. Higgins and Linda M. Higgins was dismissed.

Labor Law ExemptionOne-Family Dwelling OwnersSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilitySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceRoofing AccidentConstruction InjuryOwner LiabilityAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 01-23-00791-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2025

Jose Manuel Lopez Zeferino v. Anderson Morrison Construction, LLC; Anderson Morrision Roofing, LLC; Shawn Morrision; And Morrision Roofing, LLC

Jose Manuel Lopez Zeferino, an employee, sued his employer Anderson Morrison Construction, LLC and affiliates for negligence after falling off a roof. Lopez alleged his employer failed to provide workers' compensation insurance and necessary safety equipment, leading to his injury. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Lopez was aware of the danger and possessed the needed equipment. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that an employee's awareness of a dangerous condition does not negate the employer's duty to provide safe instrumentalities, especially for a nonsubscribing employer. The court determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the employer breached its duty.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEmployer LiabilityWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberLadder AccidentRoofing IndustryDuty to Provide Safe Equipment
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,663 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