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

Widera v. Ettco Wire & Cable Corp.

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning the dismissal of a common-law negligence claim. The case involves Catherine Widera, an infant plaintiff, who alleges severe prenatal injuries from lead exposure. These injuries are attributed to lead dust brought home by her father, Matthew Widera, from his employment at Ettco Wire and Cable Corp., which subsequently exposed her pregnant mother. The dissenting judge argues for the reinstatement of the negligence cause of action, asserting that the defendant employer owed a foreseeable duty of care to the employee's unborn child. The opinion critiques the 'lack of duty' dismissal, advocating for an expansion of liability in light of evolving legal precedents, policy considerations, and scientific evidence regarding 'fouling the nest' syndrome.

Prenatal InjuryLead PoisoningEmployer NegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityToxinsWorkplace SafetyCommon LawJudicial ActivismDissenting Opinion
References
30
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. 2016 NY Slip Op 03103 [138 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

Bennett v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Plaintiffs, who were general foremen in their 50s and 60s, brought claims against Time Warner Cable Inc., alleging age-based discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws based on a disparate impact theory. They contended that the defendant's decision to eliminate the general foreman position disproportionately affected them compared to younger workers. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss these claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, reaffirming that disparate impact claims for age discrimination are cognizable under both the State and City Human Rights Laws, and noting the requirement to construe the City Human Rights Law broadly in favor of plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactHuman Rights LawMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentState LawCity LawEmployment Law
References
8
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

International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers Ex Rel. Roy v. Rome Cable Corp.

This case involves plaintiffs suing Rome Cable Corporation regarding the termination of their Hourly Retirement Income Plan. Rome Cable, facing financial distress, terminated the plan under SEPPAA, leading the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to become the 4042 Trustee, assuming guaranteed benefits and releasing Rome Cable from further liability through a settlement agreement. A 4049 Trustee was later appointed by the PBGC to pursue unguaranteed benefits from Rome Cable. Plaintiffs brought several causes of action alleging underfunding, improper termination, breach of a collective bargaining agreement, and breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts, finding that the PBGC's role as trustee precluded direct claims against Rome Cable for guaranteed benefits, that the labor claims were barred by the plaintiffs' failure to comply with grievance and arbitration provisions, and that the ERISA fiduciary claims were time-barred. The court also determined that jurisdiction could not be predicated upon section 4070 of ERISA.

Pension Plan TerminationERISASEPPAASummary JudgmentFiduciary Duty BreachStatute of LimitationsLabor-Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProceduresTrust Law
References
24
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

Rhodes-Evans v. 111 Chelsea LLC

The case involves a Verizon field technician, referred to as Plaintiff, who sustained a back injury while splicing fiber optic cable in a parking garage. The garage was leased by 111 Eighth Avenue Parking, LLC from the building owner, 111 Chelsea LLC. The plaintiff alleged injury occurred when a ladder, placed on a debris-laden floor, shifted, causing her to twist to avoid a fall. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment for 111 Eighth Avenue Parking on a common-law negligence claim and granted 111 Chelsea LLC's motion for contractual indemnity against 111 Eighth Avenue Parking, but denied Chelsea's common-law indemnity claim. On appeal, the court modified the order, granting 111 Chelsea LLC's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims against it, finding that splicing fiber optic cable did not constitute "altering" a structure or "construction work" under the Labor Law. The court affirmed other aspects of the April 25, 2006 order and unanimously affirmed the denial of 111 Eighth Avenue Parking's motion for renewal from September 21, 2006.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnityWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityFiber Optic CableLadder AccidentBack Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1999

Harris v. Rodriguez

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted summary judgment to defendants Time Warner Cable, Miguel Rodriguez, and Queens Cable Contractors, dismissing a plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff, a cable installer, had fallen from a shed roof while working after being unable to use a ladder due to access constraints. This appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint. The court found that the "recalcitrant worker" defense did not apply, as there was no evidence the plaintiff deliberately refused to use an available safety device. Consequently, claims under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) were reinstated.

Summary Judgment ReversalRecalcitrant Worker DefenseLabor LawWorkplace SafetyLadder AccessPersonal Injury LawAppellate Court DecisionCable Installation AccidentConstruction Site AccidentWorker Rights
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 181 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