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. 2019 NY Slip Op 04932
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Mendez v. Vardaris Tech, Inc.

Guido Mendez, a foreman, was injured by a falling light fixture during asbestos removal and sued the general contractor, Vardaris Tech, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding the defendant lacked control or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order, denying summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, as the defendant failed to demonstrate the inapplicability or non-violation of relevant Industrial Code provisions or that such violations were not a proximate cause of the accident.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAsbestos RemovalIndustrial Code ViolationsFalling Object InjuryGeneral Contractor Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raczka v. Nichter Utility Construction Co.

A plaintiff was severely injured when a hydraulic platform lift collapsed, causing him to fall during the installation of a traffic signal. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Nichter Utility Construction Company, Inc., citing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Nichter, in turn, filed a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, A.J.L. Electric Co., Inc., for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, establishing that the injury resulted from a safety device's failure to provide adequate protection against an elevation-related risk. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff needed to prove the lift's malfunction cause or that his alleged negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injuries, deeming these contentions speculative.

Hydraulic lift accidentLabor Law 240(1)Elevation hazardSafety equipment failureSummary judgmentAppellate reviewGeneral contractor liabilityThird-party claimProximate causationWorkplace safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1992

Theresa M. C. v. Utilities Mutual Insurance

The case involves an appeal by Utilities Mutual Insurance Company regarding an order from the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County. This order had extinguished the company's Workers’ Compensation lien and mandated a payment of $74,700 for legal fees related to a third-party action settlement. The third-party recovery stemmed from a legal malpractice action concerning the estate of Frederic C., whose widow received workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court found that the Surrogate's Court erred by failing to discount the total estimated future Workers' Compensation benefits to their present value when calculating the deficiency and the carrier's equitable share of legal expenses. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Surrogate's Court to determine the present value of future benefits using specified Workers' Compensation Law provisions and actuarial tables.

Workers' Compensation LienThird-Party ActionLegal MalpracticeSettlement ApportionmentLegal FeesPresent Value CalculationFuture BenefitsSurrogate's CourtAppellate ReversalRemittal
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02600 [204 AD3d 1281]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Matter of Szymanski v. ABA Tech Indus., Inc.

The claimant, Andrezej Szymanski, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his request for a late payment penalty from ABA Tech Industries, Inc. Szymanski had previously been awarded benefits for binaural hearing loss, but payment was delayed while the employer's carrier sought administrative review. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The court found that an application for Board review triggers a statutory stay of payment, and the carrier made the payment within 10 days of the Board's affirming decision, thus making the penalty unwarranted. The appeal was therefore denied.

Workers' Compensation LawLate Payment PenaltyStatutory StayBoard ReviewSchedule Loss of UseBinaural Hearing LossOccupational Disease ClaimAppellate DivisionTimely PaymentIndustrial Accident
References
12
Case No. CV-22-2146
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Matter of Leon v. Structure Tech N.Y., Inc.

Claimant, Jorge Leon, a construction laborer, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining injuries to his neck and back from a fall into a hole while carrying rebar. The employer, Structure Tech New York, Inc., and its carrier controverted the claim, raising issues of lack of notice and no compensable accident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and upholding the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility in resolving conflicting testimony.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryEmployment InjuriesCredibility DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceNotice of InjuryConstruction AccidentFall AccidentRebarNeck Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pineda v. Kel-Tech Construction, Inc.

This case addresses a dispute over wage payments to undocumented alien workers employed by Kel-Tech Construction, Inc. on public works projects. The plaintiffs, including Adeline Carpió and Jose Luis Zamora, sued Kel-Tech and its sureties, Reliance Insurance Company and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, for unpaid prevailing wages and supplemental benefits, alleging a money-laundering scheme by Kel-Tech. Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs' use of fraudulent documents to obtain employment barred their claims, and also moved to dismiss claims related to the ES. 24 project. The court had previously dismissed claims for ES. 24 and declined to enforce releases from two plaintiffs. This decision denies defendants' motion for summary judgment, asserting that New York's Labor Law, particularly Section 220, is not preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) concerning the payment of earned wages to undocumented workers. The court emphasizes public policy aims to ensure fair wages for all workers and identifies unresolved factual disputes regarding both plaintiffs' alleged fraudulent conduct and Kel-Tech's own compliance with IRCA and its alleged 'unclean hands' in the wage payment scheme. The court also denied dismissal of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims related to William Taft High School.

undocumented workersprevailing wageLabor Law Section 220Immigration Reform and Control Actsummary judgmentfraudulent documentationquantum meruitunjust enrichmentpublic works contractswage dispute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2002

Semi-Tech Litigation, LLC v. Bankers Trust Co.

This is an action brought by Semi-Tech Litigation LLC, an assignee formed under a Chapter 11 plan of liquidation for Semi-Tech Corporation, against Bankers Trust Company (BT). The plaintiff alleges that BT, as the indenture trustee for Semi-Tech notes, breached its obligations under the indenture, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), and its fiduciary duties by failing to adequately protect note holders and accepting deficient compliance certificates. BT moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing, asserting that a bankruptcy entity cannot sue on behalf of third-party note holders, that TIA claims were not properly assigned, and that the assignments were void under New York's champerty statute. The Court denied BT's motion to dismiss. It found that BT's challenge to the assignment of claims from Record Date Note Holders was barred by res judicata due to a Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order. However, the Court indicated that determining when TIA claims accrued and the extent of proper assignment could not be resolved on the current record. The champerty defense was also rejected, as the court is hesitant to find an action champertous as a matter of law without clearer evidence of sole or primary intent to sue.

BankruptcyChapter 11 PlanLiquidationIndenture TrusteeTrust Indenture Act of 1939Breach of Fiduciary DutyStandingAssignment of ClaimsRes JudicataCollateral Estoppel
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1990

Paone v. Westwood Village

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action at a construction site. The injured worker and his wife initially sued Westwood Village (owner) and Holiday Management Associates, Inc. (general contractor). Westwood and Holiday then filed third-party complaints against Colonial Mechanical Co. (subcontractor) and High Tech Heating Co. (subcontractor and employer of the injured plaintiff). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted summary judgment to Colonial and High Tech, dismissing the third-party complaints. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Colonial and High Tech had no control over the work that caused the injury, thus absolving them of liability under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. The court emphasized that the duty to provide a safe workplace rests with the party having authority to control the injury-producing activity, in this instance, Holiday as the general contractor.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityControl of Work Site
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2005

Wysocki v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an action by construction workers seeking to recover prevailing wages under public works contracts from defendant Kel-Tech. The Supreme Court, New York County, entered an order on November 9, 2005, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify certain subclasses and to amend the complaint to add new class representatives. This order was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The denial of subclass certification was based on the failure to demonstrate that Kel-Tech performed work on the projects, or that the named plaintiffs worked on them, or that an agreement requiring prevailing wages existed. The motion to amend the complaint was denied due to the plaintiffs' inability to show that the proposed individuals would adequately protect the interests of the excluded subclasses.

Prevailing wagesPublic works contractsClass actionSubclass certificationComplaint amendmentClass representativesAppellate reviewCPLR 901AffirmedConstruction workers
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 657 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