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
Jan 02, 1990

Abuso v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

Scott P. Abuso, an employee of Tee’s Recycling (a business formed by Mr. T Carting), was injured when he fell from and was hit by a garbage truck owned by Thomas Toscano, a partner in Mr. T Carting. After accepting Workers’ Compensation benefits through Tee’s Recycling, Abuso commenced an action against Joseph Russo (the truck driver and employee of Mr. T Carting) and the Toscano partners (doing business as Mr. T Carting) to recover damages. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) precluded recovery. The Supreme Court granted their motion, finding a special employment relationship existed between Abuso and Mr. T Carting. The appellate court affirmed the decision, agreeing that the evidence strongly supported the existence of a special employment relationship, making it a matter of law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSpecial Employment RelationshipExclusive Remedy ProvisionAppellate ReviewGarbage Truck AccidentPartnership LiabilityEmployer ImmunityTort LawJudicial Affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04978
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Robles v. Taconic Mgt. Co., LLC

Edilberto Robles, a laborer, sustained head injuries from a closing freight elevator door and commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence against multiple entities involved in the building's management, operation, and his employment. The Supreme Court granted several motions for summary judgment. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It denied summary judgment to Taconic Management Company, LLC, Taconic Management Corp., 111 Chelsea, LLC, and Waldorf Carting Corporation on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding supervision and control and the alter ego defense. The court also denied summary judgment on indemnification claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and Waldorf Carting Corporation. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Taconic and Chelsea, and the dismissal of claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and New York Elevator & Electrical Corporation were affirmed.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentIndemnificationThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawAlter ego defensePremises liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Casucci v. Community Carting Co.

The case involves an appeal concerning a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding death benefits for the decedent, husband of the claimant, who died from a coronary artery thrombosis. Initially, the Board denied benefits, but an appeal led to reversal and remittal for further evidence on the decedent's work activities, which included heavy lifting. Despite conflicting medical testimony, the Board found the decedent's work efforts contributed to his death, affirming an award of death benefits. Appellants challenged this finding, arguing a lack of evidence of strenuous effort on the death date. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board could reasonably infer facts, and the medical conflict was a matter for the Board's resolution, supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCoronary Artery ThrombosisMyocardial InfarctionSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyCausationScope of Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

Gesualdi v. Fortunata Carting Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of various Local 282 benefit funds, sued Fortunata Carting Inc. for unpaid contributions under ERISA and LMRA. District Judge Kuntz granted default judgment and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Go for damages. Judge Go recommended awarding $382,381.41, covering unpaid contributions from remittance reports and audits, recoupment of benefits paid to ineligible owner Vincent Mascia, and amounts due from a prior settlement agreement. The recommendation also included interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and audit costs. Judge Kuntz adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, ordering the entry of judgment for the specified amount and the closure of the case, as no objections were filed by the deadline.

ERISALMRAMPPAADefault JudgmentUnpaid ContributionsMulti-employer FundsDamages CalculationPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesAudit Costs
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mattina v. Chinatown Carting Corp.

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) moved for a preliminary injunction against Chinatown Carting Corp. (CCC), alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act through unfair labor practices, including interrogations, threats, promises of benefits, and unlawful discharges to discourage union activity, as well as failure to bargain in good faith. Judge Marrero found reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred based on the NLRB Hearing record where CCC did not appear to rebut the allegations. The Court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering CCC to cease its unfair labor practices, recognize and bargain with the Union, provide requested information, comply with the collective bargaining agreement, and reinstate discharged employees and restore a job offer.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesPreliminary InjunctionSection 10(j)Collective Bargaining AgreementUnion MembershipEmployee RightsEmployer RetaliationReinstatementStatus Quo Ante
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1979

Bradford v. Air La Carte, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured at a catering facility operated by defendant Air La Carte, Inc. (Air), a subsidiary of ARA Services, Inc. (ARA). Air asserted an exclusive remedy defense under Workers' Compensation Law, arguing plaintiff was its employee. Plaintiff moved to strike this defense, and Air cross-moved for summary judgment. Special Term, relying on a Workers' Compensation Board decision naming ARA as the employer, ruled that only ARA was the employer, thus allowing the negligence action against Air. The Appellate Court modified the decision, holding that res judicata did not apply to Air because it was not a party to the prior compensation proceeding. The court also determined that whether Air was plaintiff's employer was a factual issue due to ambiguous documents, requiring further trial to explore the relationship between the parent and subsidiary corporations.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelEmployer-Employee RelationshipParent-Subsidiary LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligence ActionAppellate ReviewDual Employment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2015

Cruz v. AAA Carting & Rubbish Removal, Inc.

Jorge-Cruz ("Plaintiff") sued AAA Carting and Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Pasquale Cartalemi, Jr. ("Defendants") for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL), specifically for unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, and failure to pay spread of hours. Defendants moved to dismiss federal claims under Rule 12 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for minimum wage violation, and alternatively for summary judgment under Rule 56, arguing the FLSA's motor carrier exemption applies to Plaintiff. The court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted it for the FLSA minimum wage violation claim, finding Plaintiff's average hourly wage exceeded the minimum. The court also denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment without prejudice, citing the need for discovery to determine if Plaintiff's interstate driving activity was a natural, integral, and inseparable part of his duties or if the goods transported were in the flow of interstate commerce.

FLSANYLLOvertime WagesMinimum WageMotor Carrier ExemptionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(c) MotionRule 56 MotionInterstate CommerceWage and Hour Dispute
References
70
Case No. 12 Civ. 8456
Regular Panel Decision

Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

Plaintiffs, including Residents for Sane Trash Solutions, Inc. and Micah Z. Kellner, challenged the construction of the 91st Street Marine Transfer Station (MTS) in New York City. They alleged that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) improperly issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit by failing to conduct an adequate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), consider alternatives, or sufficiently address impacts after Superstorm Sandy. Additionally, Plaintiffs claimed the City of New York and its Department of Sanitation denied them equal protection, and Asphalt Green Inc. alleged breach of contract, trespass, and private nuisance. The District Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, affirming that the Corps’ permit issuance was rational, its environmental review was adequate, and its considerations of alternatives, mitigation, and post-Sandy impacts were sufficient. All of Plaintiffs' claims, including constitutional and state law claims, were dismissed with prejudice.

Environmental LawClean Water Act (CWA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Waste ManagementMarine Transfer StationJudicial ReviewAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Summary JudgmentFlood RiskSuperstorm Sandy
References
45
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01051
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2023

Lindsay v. CG Maiden Member, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiff Nathaniel Lindsay partial summary judgment on his common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims against Five Star Carting, L.L.C. Lindsay testified he fell from an unsecured and wet A-frame ladder while trying to close a leaking valve, establishing an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found defendant failed to provide proper protection and that the defendant's workers created the dangerous condition leading to the accident for the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Despite defendant's arguments about inconsistent statements regarding the injury, this evidence did not controvert the plaintiff's testimony about the fall. The decision confirmed plaintiff's entitlement to partial summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site InjuryWorkplace SafetyFall AccidentAppellate Decision
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 54 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