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. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00459 [201 AD3d 1001]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2022

Venegas v. Shymer

Oscar Venegas, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from a height of 25-30 feet while installing a prefabricated roof truss at a construction site. He initiated a personal injury action against 3 Merrick, LLC (owner) and Shefa Construction, Inc. (contractor), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied Venegas's motion for summary judgment on liability for both claims and granted Salamon's Home Improvements, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the complaint against it. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It granted Venegas summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against 3 Merrick, LLC, and Shefa Construction, Inc., but affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the cited industrial code regulations inapplicable as no safety devices were provided. The cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

Construction site injuryLabor Law violationFall from heightSummary judgment motionAppellate reviewNondelegable dutySafety equipmentIndustrial codePersonal injury litigationEmployer liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute between Local 3 and Charter Communications regarding a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The core issue is whether Local 3 members were bound by a CBA provision requiring arbitration of disputes during a strike in March 2017. The court found that Local 3's conduct, including signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), ratifying it, accepting improved wages and benefits, and utilizing grievance and arbitration procedures for almost two years, manifested an intent to be bound by the no-strike and arbitration provisions. Despite previous NLRB decisions regarding the inclusion of riders in the CBA, the District Court determined that the parties' actions indicated a binding agreement on the no-strike and grievance terms. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of Charter, and arbitration was ordered.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationNo-Strike ClauseSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActContract LawIntent to be BoundUnion DisputeEmployer-Employee RelationsFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This motion concerns plaintiffs' request to hold Harry VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in contempt for failing to obey a subpoena. The underlying action involves accusations of a conspiracy to prevent the sale of electrical products. During proceedings before a Special Master, VanArsdale, Jr., as business manager of the Union, refused to produce a complete file of 'Allied Union News' issues despite a validly issued subpoena duces tecum. The court acknowledges the refusal was not contumacious but legally incorrect. Consequently, the court finds both VanArsdale, Jr., and Local Union No. 3 in contempt and orders the production of the requested documents, suspending punishment and costs contingent on their compliance.

Contempt of CourtSubpoena Duces TecumLabor UnionDiscoveryDocument ProductionSpecial MasterConspiracyInterstate CommerceRefusal to ComplyCourt Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. 225 East 57th Street Owners, Inc.

Plaintiff Carlos Garcia, a laborer, was injured on January 16, 2007, while removing mirrored wall panels for JMPB Enterprises, LLC, at a cooperative apartment building owned by the defendant in Manhattan. He was injured when a panel broke and cut his hand. Garcia sued, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The motion court dismissed most claims but allowed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (b) (3) and (c) to proceed. The appellate court reversed, dismissing the remaining § 241 (6) claim, holding that the Industrial Code provisions relied upon were inapplicable because the injury resulted from the deliberate performance of work, not from structural instability caused by the progress of demolition work, which the codes are designed to address. The court clarified that the breaking of the mirror was not a hazard contemplated by the cited Industrial Code provisions.

Personal InjuryLabor LawIndustrial CodeDemolition WorkStructural IntegrityHazardSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyMirror Removal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perron v. Hendrickson/Scalamandre/Posillico (TV)

The case involves an appeal by the defendants third-party plaintiffs from three separate orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, concerning a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the orders dated September 7 and 8, 2004. However, the order dated September 9, 2004, was modified. The modification granted summary judgment to the defendants on claims of common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and § 241 (6) predicated upon 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (h), finding no employer control or elevation-related risk. The court, however, properly declined to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) due to triable issues of fact.

personal injurylabor lawsummary judgmentcommon-law negligenceappellate reviewthird-party claimelevation-related injurystatutory interpretationconstruction site safetyworkplace accident
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2005

Mercado v. TPT Brooklyn Associates, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) after a ceiling collapsed during demolition work. The § 240 (1) claim was withdrawn. The Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action was affirmed on appeal. The court found the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendants' prima facie showing that they did not supervise or control the work under Labor Law § 200, and also failed to establish the applicability of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1) or provide non-speculative evidence for 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentCeiling CollapseDemolition WorkWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNew York RegulationsPrima Facie Showing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2009

Ortega v. Everest Realty LLC

A plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained during shed demolition when an unshored wall collapsed, leading to a severe leg cut. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Everest Realty LLC (owner) and Síndrome Construction Inc. (general contractor), dismissing claims under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). On appeal, the decision was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, but denied summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, granting the plaintiff leave to amend particulars to include Industrial Code violations 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (b) (3) and (c). The court highlighted issues of fact concerning workplace conditions and the defendants' failure to provide adequate protection or inspect the demolition work.

Demolition SafetyLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationsSummary JudgmentWorkplace InjuryConstruction AccidentUnshored WallPower Saw InjuryGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1997

Murtha v. Integral Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, an electrician, was injured by falling debris at a construction site due to drilling by Integral Construction Corp., the general contractor, directly above an unblocked basement area with no warnings. Plaintiff initially filed a negligence claim, later specifying violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6). The IAS Court dismissed the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims. The appellate court reversed, finding the Labor Law § 200 claim adequately asserted despite its late inclusion in the bill of particulars, as it codified common-law negligence. Furthermore, the court sustained the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, accepting the plaintiff's identification of specific regulatory violations (12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (g) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1)) in opposition to the summary judgment motion, concluding that the allegations constituted clear violations of these safety commands.

Construction accidentFalling debrisLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentAppellate reversalWorker safetyNYCRR regulationsPremises liability
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06463 [210 AD3d 858]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Carranza v. JCL Homes, Inc.

The plaintiff, Ronal Carranza, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, regarding his personal injury claims against JCL Homes, Inc., stemming from an accident during demolition work. Carranza, allegedly injured by a falling cement board while on a ladder, sought damages under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court had granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims and common-law negligence, while denying Carranza's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the defendants successfully demonstrated that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable as the falling object was not being hoisted or secured. Additionally, Carranza failed to show a violation of the Industrial Code provision 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) for his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim or that the defendants exercised supervision over his work for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentLabor Law ClaimsCommon-Law NegligenceFalling ObjectIndustrial Code ViolationSupervision and ControlAppellate Review
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 3,128 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