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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04941 [208 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2022

Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc.

This personal injury action arises from a construction site accident where plaintiff, an A-Val Architectural Metal III, LLC employee, slipped on pebbles. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to several defendants (Park, CBRE, and Structure Tone Inc.) on claims related to Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200, and common-law negligence. The court determined that the Industrial Code regulations cited were inapplicable and that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Additionally, the court ruled on various contractual indemnification claims, finding certain indemnification clauses enforceable while others were not due to ambiguity or lack of negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon Law NegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

World Trading Corp. v. Kolchin

The plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from arbitrating disputes, arguing that the defendant union's change in affiliation from the American Federation of Labor to the Committee for Industrial Organization, along with a name change, altered its legal entity and invalidated their contract. The court disagreed, holding that a union's identity, structure, operation, constitution, by-laws, officers, and membership remain the same despite changes in affiliation and name. The court affirmed that such changes do not affect the union's rights or responsibilities under existing contracts. Therefore, the court found no basis to support the plaintiff's contention.

union affiliationarbitration disputeinjunctioncontract validityorganizational identitylabor lawname changelegal entitytrade unionsAmerican Federation of Labor
References
2
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05941
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2025

Grala v. Structural Preserv. Sys., LLC

This case involves a consolidated action for personal injuries filed by Pawel Grala and his wife against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (Structural) and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Structural subsequently filed a third-party action against Apex Development, Inc. (Grala's employer) and Maciej Witczak. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning motions for summary judgment on claims of contractual and common-law indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and Apex's counterclaims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants on the cause of action alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against Apex. In all other respects, the Supreme Court's order, which denied other branches of the third-party defendants' motion and granted the cross-motion to dismiss Apex's counterclaims, was affirmed.

Personal InjuryWorksite AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northeastern Stud Welding Corp. v. Webster

A New York corporation, previously certified as a woman-owned business enterprise, was denied recertification in 1992, leading to a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the determination. The court rejected claims of inadequate explanation and procedural irregularities, finding the Hearing Officer's rationale, adopted by the Executive Director, provided sufficient basis for judicial review, and the hearing procedures were within discretion. Substantial evidence supported the denial of recertification, as control over petitioner's daily operations, including critical decisions on bidding, marketing, sales, purchasing, hiring, and field supervision, was shared between the sole shareholder Jean Zelezniak, her husband, and another employee. This shared control, coupled with Zelezniak's lack of expertise and the company's formation structure, led to the conclusion that the business was family-owned and not independently controlled by Zelezniak as required by regulations for woman-owned business enterprise status. Consequently, the determination to deny recertification was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Woman-owned business enterpriseRecertification denialCPLR Article 78Administrative reviewBusiness controlShareholder controlFamily-owned businessProcedural due processJudicial reviewExecutive Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. ADJ9762825
Regular
Feb 29, 2016

MARIA OLGA BARAJAS vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, CORVEL

This case involves Maria Olga Barajas's workers' compensation claim against Barrett Business Services and Corvel. The applicant was injured on July 20, 2014, and her attempts to change her treating physician within the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) were unsuccessful. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendants' Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the original award. This award allowed the applicant to seek treatment outside the MPN at the defendants' expense due to the failure to facilitate a timely change of physician.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardremovalchange of treating physicianinterim orderLabor Code § 4616.3(b)Title 8Regulations
References
2
Case No. CV-22-2295
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Zygmunt Kaminski

In April 2015, claimant Zygmunt Kaminski sustained catastrophic injuries from a 20-foot fall, leading to a permanent total disability and authorization for 24-hour home health care by the Workers' Compensation Board in July 2018. In March 2022, the employer and its carrier (Integrated Structures Corp. et al.) sought to reduce home health care, citing a neurologist's report. A WCLJ denied the request, finding the issue of 24-hour care already litigated and no material change in claimant's condition. The Board affirmed, applying collateral estoppel to preclude relitigation, as the carrier had not appealed the prior determination. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the issue of 24-hour home health care was previously decided, and the carrier failed to demonstrate a change in claimant's condition.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityHome Health CareRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAppellate ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationClaimant's InjuriesActivities of Daily LivingPrior Determination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrington & Favia, Inc. v. New York Typographical Union, Local 14156

The case concerns whether petitioner F & F, a successor corporation formed by John Farrington, is compelled to arbitrate a dispute with the Union under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to which its predecessor entities, Farrington & Favia, Inc. and Boro Typographers, Inc., were parties. F & F continued the same printing business, servicing the same clients with substantially the same workforce after Boro ceased operations. The Union demanded arbitration, which F & F resisted, seeking to stay it. Applying federal labor law principles, the Court found "substantial continuity of identity in the business enterprise" between F & F and its predecessors. Citing John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, the Court concluded that a change in corporate structure does not automatically remove the duty to arbitrate, especially where the successor is an "alter ego" or a "disguised continuance" of the old employer. Consequently, the Union's motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration was granted, and F & F's cross-motion to stay arbitration was denied.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSuccessor LiabilityLabor LawCorporate StructureBusiness ContinuityAlter EgoSummary JudgmentFederal PolicyDispute Resolution
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bardouille v. Structure-Tone, Inc.

Thomas Bardouille and his wife appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Kings County, after Thomas was injured in an electrical explosion. The initial Supreme Court decision had granted summary judgment dismissing their complaint, which alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and common-law negligence against various defendants including building owners, managing agents, and contractors. The appellate court modified the initial order, finding triable issues of fact concerning direction and control and the applicability of Industrial Code regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.13(b)(4), thereby reinstating certain claims against Structure-Tone, Inc., Deutsche Bank, Tishman Speyer Trammell Crow Limited Partnership, and Tishman Speyer Properties, Inc. The appeal also addressed a third-party action against Bardouille's employer, Ohm Electric, partially dismissing contribution and indemnification claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 due to the absence of "grave injury" but affirming contractual claims. The appeal from an order denying reargument was dismissed, and the initial order was modified and affirmed in part.

Personal injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmentnegligenceappellate reviewconstruction accidentelectrical explosionindemnificationcontributiontriable issue of fact
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,311 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