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
Sep 28, 1979

Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation

Plaintiff Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from holding a hearing concerning alleged defects in Fiat vehicles and a repurchase campaign. Fiat contended it was deprived of adequate notice, an opportunity to present its views, and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. The court, presided over by District Judge Metzner, applied the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, emphasizing that judicial intervention is typically warranted only after a final agency determination. The court denied Fiat's motion, finding that Fiat received reasonable notice, its constitutional claims could be addressed at the hearing and were subject to de novo review, and there was insufficient evidence of agency bias. Consequently, the court ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled on September 28, 1979.

Preliminary InjunctionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue ProcessAdequate NoticeImpartial TribunalNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationVehicle SafetyProduct Recall
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cavallaro v. Corning Inc.

Rosario Cavallaro, a former employee of Corning Incorporated, brought an employment discrimination action alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cavallaro was terminated in 1995 after repeatedly refusing to wear steel-toed safety shoes, a new company requirement based on OSHA standards, citing pain in his right foot. The Court granted Corning's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The court found Cavallaro's claims time-barred as his EEOC charge was filed over 300 days after he knew of the alleged discriminatory conduct, and rejected his "continuing violation" argument. His disparate impact claim was also dismissed for not being reasonably related to his EEOC charge. Furthermore, the court determined Cavallaro failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, concluding that his inability to wear safety shoes did not constitute a "disability" under the ADA, as it did not substantially limit a major life activity like walking or working generally, nor did Corning regard him as disabled. Finally, Cavallaro failed to show pretext for the non-discriminatory reason for his termination (failure to follow safety rules) or establish a causal link for his retaliation claim.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawDisability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEEOC ExhaustionDisparate ImpactSubstantial LimitationMajor Life Activities
References
56
Case No. 657577/19
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2025

McMillian v. Out-Look Safety LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted class certification to plaintiffs Craig McMillian, Eian McMillian, and Victor Ballast. The plaintiffs, identified as non-union construction "flaggers," asserted that they were unlawfully paid below the prevailing wage for public works projects in New York City, having been misclassified as "crossing guards" or "traffic control." The lawsuit targeted Out-Look Safety LLC, Restani Construction Corp., Triumph Construction Corp., Elecnor Hawkeye, LLC, and Safeway Construction Enterprises, LLC. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated the prerequisites for class certification under CPLR 901(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and superiority. Additionally, the Appellate Division concurred that the Supreme Court's modified class definition successfully circumvented the creation of an impermissible "fail-safe" class.

Class certificationPrevailing wage disputeConstruction flaggersMisclassificationCPLR 901(a) factorsNumerosityCommonalityTypicalitySuperiorityFail safe class
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05172 [220 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Matter of Espinoza v. City Safety Compliance Corp.

Jaime Espinoza, a safety manager, sustained injuries while pulling a gate in a parking area adjacent to a construction site after his shift. He filed for workers' compensation, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer neither controlled the parking area nor was it part of the jobsite. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The Court found a sufficient nexus between the employment and the parking area, noting that Espinoza was instructed to park there and construction materials were stored by the general contractor in the same vicinity, thereby extending the employer's premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryParking Area InjuryPremises Extension DoctrineRemittalAppellate Division Third DepartmentConstruction SiteSafety ManagerArising Out of Employment
References
13
Case No. ADJ2024655 (SAC 0331505)
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

MAURICE WEBSTER vs. JOHN L. SULLIVAN CHEVROLET, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION

This order denies Maurice Webster's petition for reconsideration in his workers' compensation case against John L. Sullivan Chevrolet and Safety National Casualty Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Finding no basis for reconsideration, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeDenying ReconsiderationMaurice WebsterJohn L. Sullivan ChevroletSafety National Casualty CorporationADJ204655SAC 0331505Gregory G. Aghazarian
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leszczynski v. Town of Neversink

Plaintiff Grzegorz Leszczynski sustained head and back injuries from a falling frozen stone while working in a trench, leading him and his wife to sue IMS Safety, Inc., a safety consultant, under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The jury found IMS Safety, Inc. liable under Labor Law § 241 (6) for failing to ensure workplace safety by allowing elevated loads over workers, a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (h) (5). Damages were awarded to plaintiffs for medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence that IMS Safety, Inc. acted as an agent of the general contractor and violated specific Industrial Code provisions, and that the damages award was reasonable.

Construction Site InjuryLabor Law ViolationFalling Object AccidentWorkplace SafetySafety Consultant NegligenceIndustrial Code CompliancePersonal Injury DamagesAppellate AffirmationAgent LiabilityHerniated Disc
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03852 [161 AD3d 1183]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Munzon v. Victor at Fifth, LLC

Juan P. Munzon, a laborer, was injured during demolition work when he fell from a wooden beam after detaching his safety harness to help a coworker move a heavy metal beam. The metal beam struck the wooden beam, causing Munzon to fall from the fourth to the third floor. Munzon sued Victor at Fifth, LLC, and a general contractor/construction manager, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to Munzon on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. A jury subsequently awarded Munzon damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that Munzon established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to inadequate safety equipment, and found that the jury's awards for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses were reasonable and did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryLabor Law ViolationElevated Work SiteSummary JudgmentLiabilityDamages AwardPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesAppellate ReviewConstruction Accident
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 5,461 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