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. 2 Misc 3d 627
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2004

Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC

Larry Munoz, an injured plaintiff, appealed a Supreme Court order that had granted summary judgment to defendant DJZ Realty, LLC, dismissing his Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. Munoz fell from a ladder while installing a poster on a billboard, arguing this activity constituted 'altering' a structure, a protected activity under the Labor Law. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment on that claim. The court reasoned that the defendant failed to prove, as a matter of law, that applying a new advertisement to a billboard was mere routine maintenance rather than an alteration or repair. A dissenting opinion contended that such an activity was routine maintenance and not a 'significant physical change' to the structure, and therefore should not be covered by Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentBillboard InstallationLabor Law § 240(1)Statutory InterpretationAlteration of StructureRoutine MaintenanceSummary Judgment AppealElevation-Related HazardAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LaFontaine v. Albany Management, Inc.

Catherine La Fontaine, a self-employed wallpaper hanger, sustained injuries after falling from a stepladder while removing wallpaper in a vacant apartment owned by American Heritage Realty Partnership and managed by Albany Management, Inc. She and her husband filed a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding wallpapering was not covered by the statute. This court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that wallpapering is neither an activity specifically enumerated in Labor Law § 240 (1) (such as altering, repairing, or painting) nor incidental and necessary to such enumerated activities. The court emphasized that altering requires a 'significant physical change' and repairing applies when something is 'broken, inoperable or not functioning properly', neither of which applied to wallpapering.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Worker FallStepladder AccidentWallpaperingBuilding AlterationProperty MaintenanceStatutory InterpretationAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentScope of Employment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ8 156794
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

NURY PEREZ vs. BLUE RIVER DENIM, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed a lien claim due to a failure to pay a $100 lien activation fee. The lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services (PPS), claims computer issues prevented timely payment. While the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, the WCAB may rescind the dismissal if PPS pays the activation fee within ten days of this notice. If paid, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCABadministrative law judgereconsiderationrescissiondismissallien conferenceCompromise and Releaseindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06429
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2017

Estate of Goldstein v. Kingston

The Estate of Alter A. Goldstein brought a wrongful death action after Alter A. Goldstein sustained fatal injuries when struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Debbie Miketta and owned by defendant Jonathan Kingston. The accident occurred when Miketta was reversing her vehicle on a one-way street due to workers from defendant Forest Hills Garden Corporation (FHGC) performing work. The Supreme Court granted FHGC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that FHGC's conduct merely created the condition for the accident and was not a proximate cause. The Court concluded that Miketta's decision to reverse her vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the decedent's injuries, and consequently dismissed the separate appeal by Kingston and Miketta.

Wrongful deathSummary judgmentNegligenceProximate causeMotor vehicle accidentAppellate reviewAffirmed decisionDismissed appealLiabilityEstate law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gherardi v. City of New York

The court addresses the scope of a contractor's obligation under New York Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically focusing on what constitutes "constructing" and "alteration" activities. It clarifies that extensive wiring installation on multiple floors of a public school qualifies as an "alteration," thereby triggering the protective provisions of the statute. Additionally, the decision confirms that the statute's protection extends to areas like entrance ramps used for ingress, egress, and material delivery, even if not the immediate work area. The court emphasizes that the instrumentality causing injury does not necessarily need to be erected for worker use to fall under the statute's purview.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyAlteration WorkScaffolding LawNew YorkWork Area ProtectionContractor LiabilityWorker Protection
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,822 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