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 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1995

Curran v. City of New York

The City of New York, as a defendant third-party plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated September 15, 1995. The original order had granted a motion by third-party defendant E.E. Cruz & Co., Inc. to dismiss the City's claim for common-law indemnification and contribution entirely. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that the dismissal should only apply to common-law indemnification up to the $1,000,000 limit of the Aetna insurance policy. This decision was based on the antisubrogation rule, as Aetna insured both the City and E.E. Cruz under the same policy. The modified order was subsequently affirmed.

Common-law indemnificationContributionAntisubrogation ruleInsurance policy limitsThird-party plaintiffThird-party defendantAppellate reviewPersonal injuries damagesInsurance lawMotion to dismiss
References
1
Case No. CA 11-00541
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2011

BYRD, JOSEPH v. RONEKER, JR., FREDERICK E.

The plaintiff, Joseph Byrd, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while cutting a tree limb at the home of defendant Frederick E. Roneker, Jr. Byrd initiated an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Roneker's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that Roneker, as a homeowner who did not direct or control the plaintiff's work, was exempt from liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Roneker exercised supervisory control or had notice of any dangerous condition, thus dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawPersonal InjuryLadder FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNew York LawNegligencePremises LiabilityTree Trimming
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Figueiredo Ferraz Consultoria E Engenharia De Projeto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru

Figueiredo Ferraz Consultoria E Engenharia de Projeto Ltda. (Plaintiff) had petitioned to confirm a $21 million arbitration award against the Republic of Peru, Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, and Programa Agua Para Todos (Defendants). The Court dismissed the action due to forum non conveniens following a mandate from the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, Defendants moved for attorneys' fees and costs amounting to over $1.1 million. The Court denied this motion, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs the availability of attorneys' fees, and neither the FAA nor the parties' original agreement provides for such an award. The Court also rejected arguments regarding the applicability of Peruvian law and any alleged concession by the Plaintiff on fees.

Arbitration AwardForum Non ConveniensAttorneys' FeesFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationJudicial DiscretionContractual DisputeCivil ProcedureSecond CircuitMotion to Dismiss
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plumbing Industry Board, Plumbing Local Union No. 1 v. L & L Masons, Inc.

Plaintiff Plumbing Industry Board (PIB) sued E.W. Howell and American Home Assurance Construction Co., Inc., seeking unpaid fringe benefit contributions under New York's Lien Law and as a third-party beneficiary to a contract. The defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted PIB's state law claims and moved for summary judgment. PIB cross-moved for a remand to state court. The court determined that ERISA preempted both New York Lien Law § 5 and PIB's common law contract claims, ruling that the Lien Law created an obligation not permitted under ERISA and the contract claim created a new theory of recovery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied PIB's motion to remand, and dismissed all claims.

ERISA pre-emptionNew York Lien LawFringe benefit contributionsSummary judgmentThird-party beneficiary contractCollective bargaining agreementEmployee benefit planSurety bondSubcontractor defaultFederal jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. ADJ7516108
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ANGELICA CROTTE vs. UFO, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Virginia Surety's petition for removal because it was unverified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). The WCAB also noted the petition's excessive length and improper attachments, which violated multiple rules, including CA Rule 10232(a)(10) and WCAB Rule 10842(c). Based on these egregious violations, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on Virginia Surety's counsel, Sophia E. Martinez, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesLabor Code 5813SanctionsFrivolousWillful Failure to ComplyWCJAdministrative Law JudgeVirginia Surety Company
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. ADJ1070031 (LAO 0817205)
Regular
Aug 10, 2012

JOSE MEDRANO vs. SOO AHN (AN INDIVIDUAL), WARD NORTH AMERICA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCATION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing their lien. The lien claimant failed to appear at a properly noticed lien trial, which is grounds for dismissal under WCAB Rule 10562(e)(1). The petition was further dismissed because it failed to specify which order was being reconsidered and did not identify the specific lien claimant whose lien was dismissed. Additionally, the lien claimant failed to properly serve the defendants with the petition, violating Labor Code section 5905.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantWCJNotice of Intention to DismissCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5904Labor Code Section 5905
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of E.E. Austin & Son, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated grain dust and a hose while working on a construction project at a grain silo owned by Nestle Purina Petcare Company. Plaintiff commenced an action against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. Nestle, in turn, filed a third-party action against Austin for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from both Nestle and Austin, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (except for the part based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)). However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Labor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationGrain silo accidentConstruction project injuryTripping hazardPremises liabilitySupervisory controlIndemnity provision
References
27
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 14,096 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