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
Jun 20, 2005

Hageman v. B & G Building Services, LLC

The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at a Home Depot store, initially sued Home Depot, and later commenced an action against B & G Building Services, LLC (Building) for personal injuries. Building cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was the plaintiff's employer and that the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law due to an alter ego or joint venturer relationship with the plaintiff's direct employers, the Electrical corporations. The Supreme Court granted Building's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was reversed; the appellate court determined that Building failed to provide sufficient proof to establish an alter ego or joint venturer relationship, which would legally prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with the personal injury action under the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityDemolition AccidentAppellate ReviewNassau CountyConstruction Injury
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00221 [201 AD3d 1140]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of New Team, LLC (Commissioner of Labor)

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board assessed New Team, LLC for additional unemployment insurance contributions, determining an employment relationship with its brand ambassadors based on an audit from July 2010 to September 2013. New Team appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that New Team exercised sufficient supervision, direction, or control over the brand ambassadors to establish an employment relationship for unemployment insurance purposes. The decision highlighted factors such as New Team's recruitment, training, scheduling, event monitoring, and reporting requirements for brand ambassadors.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorBrand AmbassadorsUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate Division Third DepartmentSubstantial EvidenceLabor Department AuditControl TestMarketing Services
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fioranelli v. News Building Corp.

Anthony Fioranelli sued News Building Corporation for injuries sustained during employment. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that Workers' Compensation was the exclusive remedy because News Building Corporation was effectively the plaintiff's employer, New York News, Inc., due to corporate merger. Prior motions to dismiss on these grounds were denied on procedural issues. This court, however, found that New York News, Inc. was indeed the building's owner at the time of the accident under Business Corporation Law § 906(b)(2). Consequently, the court ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 provided the plaintiff's sole remedy, dismissing the action against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation exclusivityCorporate mergerBuilding ownershipCPLR dismissal motionLaw of the Case doctrineBusiness Corporation LawEmployer liabilityPersonal injury claimProcedural lawSubstantive law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huether v. New York Times Building, LLC

Plaintiff John Huether, a carpenter, sustained injuries while unloading drywall from a truck during the construction of the New York Times Building. The accident occurred when an unsecured steel plate, used to bridge an 8-10 inch gap between the truck and loading dock, shifted, causing a dolly loaded with drywall to tip and crush his right leg. Plaintiffs sued building owners, general contractors, and the truck operator, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The court granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as not gravity-related. For Labor Law § 241(6), the court found 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b)(3) applicable and violated, granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment, while other cited Industrial Code provisions were deemed inapplicable. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were dismissed against the building owners (NYT) due to lack of control, but were allowed to proceed against the general contractors (Turner and Amec) due to disputed facts regarding their control over the work methods and notice of unsafe conditions.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentLoading Dock SafetyUnsecured Bridging PlateIndustrial Code ViolationsGeneral Contractor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkPremises Condition
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 1996

Sorrentino v. Ronbet Co.

This case involved a building employee suing the building owner for personal injuries sustained on the job. The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, citing the Workers’ Compensation Law as a bar, was granted by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. This decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that a prior denial of a summary judgment motion did not prevent a later motion to dismiss during trial. The merits of the case distinguished it from similar precedents, primarily because documentary evidence proved the plaintiff remained the defendant's employee despite claims of a management company being the employer, supported by W-2 statements, mortgage applications, and lack of supervisory evidence from the management company. The listing of the management company as the employer with the Workers’ Compensation Board was deemed inconsequential since the identity of the employer was not disputed before the Board.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipDismissal of ComplaintSummary JudgmentTrial MotionDocumentary EvidenceSupervisionW-2 StatementMortgage Application
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hargobin v. K.A.F.C.I. Corp.

Khamrajh Hargobin, a crane operator for Allied Building Supply, sustained back injuries when the boom of his truck snapped, causing him to fall within the cab during material delivery at Stewart Airport. He sued various defendants, including American Airlines (owner), AARK (general contractor), and KAFCI/Terra Firma (subcontractor), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 200, and 241(6). The IAS court denied plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion on the § 240(1) claim and dismissed other claims. On appeal, the court examined whether the crane constituted a Scaffold Act device and if Hargobin's activity was covered by Labor Law § 240(1). The court concluded that the crane was not used to bring about significant structural change, and the injury was not directly from an activity protected by the Scaffold Act. Consequently, the appellate court modified the lower court's order to dismiss all Labor Law § 240(1) claims against all defendants, while otherwise affirming the initial ruling.

Scaffold ActLabor Law § 240(1)Construction Site AccidentCrane OperationElevation-Related HazardsAbsolute LiabilityProximate CauseSummary Judgment MotionStatutory InterpretationBoom Truck
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaughter v. American Building Maintenance Co.

Ellis L. Slaughter, a former employee of American Building Maintenance Co. of New York (ABM), moved for partial summary judgment on his Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim and to dismiss ABM's affirmative defense of collateral estoppel. Slaughter was terminated by ABM due to excessive absences under a 'no fault' policy, stemming from recurring back pain, a condition known to ABM's predecessor. The court found that Slaughter's notice to ABM regarding his FMLA-qualifying leave was insufficient for summary judgment in his favor, as merely calling in sick did not adequately inform ABM of his FMLA-protected condition, and doctors' notes were provided with delay. However, the court granted Slaughter's motion to dismiss ABM's collateral estoppel defense, ruling that a prior arbitration decision, which upheld his termination for excessive absenteeism, did not preclude his federal statutory FMLA claim because the issues resolved were distinct and the arbitrator did not consider FMLA specifics. The motion for summary judgment was thus granted in part and denied in part.

FMLASummary Judgment MotionCollateral EstoppelAbsenteeism PolicyTermination of EmploymentBack InjuryMedical Leave NoticeLabor LawEmployee RightsPreclusive Effect of Arbitration
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rea v. Albert Elia Building Co.

Plaintiff Philip John Rea, a welder, sustained serious injuries when a scaffold rope parted, causing him to fall while working on a sewage treatment plant. He and his wife (plaintiffs) moved for partial summary judgment, arguing absolute liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and (3). The defendant, Albert Elia Building Company, Inc., submitted an attorney's affidavit that did not dispute the plaintiffs' account of the accident or the cause. The court found no factual issues on liability, affirming the defendant's absolute duty under the statute which cannot be avoided by claims of plaintiff's fault or defendant's lack of fault. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order and granted the motion for partial summary judgment.

Scaffold AccidentAbsolute LiabilityLabor LawPartial Summary JudgmentWelder InjuryConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityWorker SafetyStatutory DutyPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spiegler v. Gerken Building Corp.

Kerry Spiegler, an employee of All Ran Electric, was injured while installing an electrical mounting channel, which struck him in the head. He and his wife sued Integrity Contracting, Gerken Building Corporation, and North Fork Bank, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims based on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 but denied dismissal for Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). This appellate decision ruled that the Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because the incident was not an elevation-related hazard. It also held that the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.8 (c) (1), should have been dismissed as it was not applicable to a 'hard-hat' job.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentLabor LawElevation HazardIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyNegligenceThird-Party LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Homan v. Gotham Building Maintenance Corp.

The claimant, a fireman for Gotham Building Maintenance Corporation, suffered an inguinal hernia in 1977 but did not file a workers' compensation claim until 1982 when surgery became necessary. The State Insurance Fund, the carrier, paid for the surgery in September 1983. At a hearing, the employer and carrier argued the claim was time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, as it was filed more than two years after the accident. However, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the carrier's payment for the surgery constituted an advance payment of compensation, thereby waiving the two-year limitation period. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing established precedent that such advance payments, even if made after the statutory period, waive the limitation, especially when timeliness was not disputed before payment.

Workers' CompensationLimitation PeriodAdvance PaymentWaiverMedical ExpensesHernia InjuryTimeliness of ClaimBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewState Insurance Fund
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,330 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