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

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. 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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03994
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2023

Miller v. W Servs. Group, LLC

David L. Miller (plaintiff) sustained injuries from a slip and fall, receiving workers' compensation benefits from Safety National Casualty Corp., the insurer for his employer, Apple, Inc. Miller settled his personal injury claim against W Services Group, LLC for $1,350,000. He then attempted a "walk away" agreement with Safety National, where the insurer would waive its lien in exchange for Miller waiving future workers' compensation benefits. After an initial agreement by email, Safety National reneged upon learning Miller returned to work. The Supreme Court in Onondaga County enforced this settlement, but the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed, ruling that any such agreement involving a waiver of a workers' compensation lien requires approval from the Workers' Compensation Board to be enforceable. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings on alternative relief.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement EnforceabilityLien WaiverAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardThird-Party LiabilityInsurance SubrogationContract DisputeStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vielhauer v. Dick Corp.

Adrian Vielhauer, an electrician for Mateo Electric, suffered a severe eye injury on January 12, 1988, while working at a State Riverview Correctional Facility construction site in St. Lawrence County. He and his wife initiated legal action against an unnamed contractor, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law due to a lack of safe working conditions and proper safety equipment. The defendant contractor, whose responsibilities included civil and interior work, sought summary judgment, asserting it was not the general contractor and therefore bore no duty to provide safety equipment to Vielhauer. The Supreme Court granted this motion, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient admissible evidence to contest the defendant's claim of lacking general contractor status or control over safety provisions for the electrical workers.

Eye InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentNegligenceLabor Law ViolationsDuty to Provide Safety EquipmentGeneral ContractorAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionWorkplace Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acosta v. Wollett

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding where public employees (petitioners) challenged a determination by the Director of Employee Relations that they engaged in an illegal strike. The employees refused to work at a temporary office location ("Ben's") citing unsafe and substandard conditions, including lack of heating, electrical hazards, and limited exits, and the absence of a certificate of occupancy. While they performed other clerical work, they refused to process unemployment claims at Ben's. The court found their refusal to work at the assigned location, despite their safety concerns, constituted a work stoppage or slowdown in violation of the Civil Service Law, affirming the initial determination and dismissing their petitions. A dissenting opinion argued that the employees' actions were driven by a genuine and reasonable fear for their safety due to the deplorable working conditions.

Public Sector Labor DisputeStrike ProhibitionEmployee Safety ConcernsSubstandard Workplace ConditionsCPLR Article 78 ReviewTaylor Law ViolationWork StoppageCertificate of OccupancyPublic Employee UnionsConcerted Activity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Pine Hill Coffee Service, Inc.

Gerald Kennedy, an employee of Sahlem’s Roofing, sustained injuries after falling from a roof while working on a building owned by defendant James DeMarco and occupied by Pine Hill Coffee Services, Inc. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, arguing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate safety equipment. Defendants contended that a co-employee acting as a 'spotter' constituted a safety device and that Kennedy was a recalcitrant worker for continuing to work when the 'spotter' left. The court rejected the argument that a human 'spotter' is a safety device under Labor Law § 240 (1), emphasizing the requirement for physical safety devices. Finding that the absence of proper safety devices was the proximate cause of Kennedy’s injuries, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Lawabsolute liabilityconstruction accidentfall from heightsafety devicesrecalcitrant workerproximate causeNew York Lawsummary judgmentowner liability
References
7
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01887 [236 AD3d 617]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Velez v. LSG 105 W. 28th, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court had granted plaintiff Jose Luis Velez summary judgment on liability against LSG 105 West 28th, LLC and Flintlock Construction Services LLC, finding he fell from an elevation without adequate safety devices as instructed by his foreman. Conversely, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim and their third-party claims for indemnification and contribution against Construction & Realty Safety Group, Inc. (CRSG). The court also granted CRSG's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding CRSG was not negligent as it lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, thus precluding claims requiring a finding of negligence. The Appellate Division upheld these determinations.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentFall from ElevationSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,535 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