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

De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co.

This case addresses whether municipal vessels qualify as "public works" under Labor Law § 220 and Article I, § 17 of the New York State Constitution, thereby mandating prevailing wages for workers involved in their construction, maintenance, or repair. Plaintiffs, employees of Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., sued their employer and its sureties, asserting that they were third-party beneficiaries to contracts between Caddell and New York City agencies for work on various municipal vessels, including Staten Island Ferries and fireboats. The lower courts had dismissed the complaint, citing prior precedent, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Court established a new three-prong test for determining if a project is a "public work": (1) a public agency must be a party to a contract involving laborers, (2) the contract must involve construction-like labor paid by public funds, and (3) the primary objective of the work must benefit the general public. Applying this test, the Court concluded that municipal vessels serving the general public's use or benefit are indeed "public works," thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Public works doctrinePrevailing wage lawLabor LawState Constitutional LawMunicipal vesselsStaten Island FerryFireboatsPublic benefitConstruction laborPublic funds
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00995 [202 AD3d 895]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Aponte v. Airport Indus. Park, LLC

The plaintiff, Rafael Aponte, appealed the denial of his cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Concurrently, third-party defendant Young's Auto Collision and Glass, Inc., appealed the granting of summary judgment for common-law indemnification to Airport Industrial Park, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion, citing triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's work constituted 'repairing' or routine maintenance under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment against Young's Auto Collision and Glass, Inc., denying the common-law indemnification claim, as Airport Industrial Park, LLC, failed to establish Young's negligence or supervision of the work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryLadder FallRoutine MaintenanceWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskNegligence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. (insurer) against Coastal Dry Dock and Repair Corp. (insured) regarding unpaid retrospective premiums on a workers' compensation policy. The insurer sought to recover additional premiums calculated based on the insured's loss record, as stipulated by a 'Retrospective Premium Endorsement.' The defendant raised multiple defenses and counterclaims, alleging improper calculations, misrepresentation, and mishandling of claims. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the defendant's opposition, primarily an attorney's affidavit lacking personal knowledge, was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court found the defendant's defenses and counterclaims legally insufficient, affirming the insurer's contractual right to negotiate and settle claims.

Workers' Compensation PolicyRetrospective PremiumSummary JudgmentContract DisputeInsurance LawAppellate ReviewAffidavit SufficiencyEvidentiary FactsClaims SettlementPolicy Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05114 [129 AD3d 525]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2015

Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Union of Automotive Technicians

This case involves an appeal regarding an arbitration award concerning an E-Z Pass benefit for retired members of the Union of Automotive Technicians. The Supreme Court, New York County, modified the arbitration award to rule that the E-Z Pass benefit is a vested lifetime benefit. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this judgment, citing its disposition in previous appeals with similar issues. The court concluded that the Supreme Court reached the correct result based on established precedent.

Arbitration AwardE-Z Pass BenefitVested Lifetime BenefitPublic Employee UnionCollective BargainingAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentMemorandum of AgreementLabor DisputeAffirmance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gampero v. Mathai

The defendant Monachan Mathai appealed various orders and judgments from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning a breach of contract action. The plaintiffs, Louis Gampero and New Security Collision, Inc., had sued Mathai alleging breach of a stock purchase agreement due to undisclosed debts after the sale of an automobile repair business. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on indemnification and attorney's fees. The Appellate Division reversed the amended judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment on both the indemnification and attorney's fee claims, finding they failed to establish payment of the debts or that attorney's fees were clearly permitted. The Court upheld the denial of Mathai's cross-motion for summary judgment and his motion for attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractStock Purchase AgreementIndemnificationAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFrivolous ConductUndisclosed DebtsBusiness SaleNew York Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1985

Espinosa v. A & S Welding & Boiler Repair, Inc.

The case involves a plaintiff, an employee of Atlas Welding & Boiler Repair, Inc., who was injured while loading a boiler section onto a truck owned by A & S Welding & Boiler Repair, Inc. using a chain hoist. The plaintiff alleged the chain hoist jammed, causing the boiler section to fall on his foot. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, found A & S and Atlas 50% liable each. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove a defect or notice thereof and that the expert's testimony was based on speculation and a too-remote inspection. The appellate court also determined that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable as A & S did not have exclusive control of the hoist, leading to the dismissal of both the complaint and the third-party complaint.

Hoist accidentProduct liabilityExpert testimony admissibilityRes ipsa loquiturExclusive controlPrima facie caseReversed judgmentWorker injuryLiabilityCausation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanley v. Thompson

The New York City Comptroller's determination from March 2, 2006, which established the prevailing wage for supervisor highway repairers (SHRs), was unanimously confirmed by the court. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the Labor Law § 220 proceeding was dismissed. Substantial evidence supported the Comptroller's finding that SHRs and foremen of highway repairs in Locals 1010 and 1018 perform comparable duties, based on thorough investigation including job specification comparisons and field surveys. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that SHRs cannot receive the prevailing wage for manual labor not explicitly in their job specification, noting that their duties include "related work" and hands-on tasks necessary for supervision, thus exposing them to similar risks as their crews. Consequently, SHRs are entitled to the same prevailing wage as foremen performing comparable duties in the private sector.

Prevailing WageSupervisor Highway RepairerLabor Law § 220Civil Service ScheduleJob SpecificationManual Labor DutiesComparable DutiesCollective BargainingField SurveysPetition Denied
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danna v. New York Telephone Co.

In this memorandum opinion, the court addresses Plaintiff Fran Danna's application for backpay, equitable relief in the form of reinstatement, and prejudgment interest. A previous ruling dated November 17, 1990, found defendant New York Telephone liable for sex discrimination and sexual harassment in its demotion of Danna. The court awarded Danna $58,499.00 in backpay and $18,472.00 in prejudgment interest, for a total of $76,971.00, and ordered her reinstatement as a Service Technician. Damages were calculated based on the average salary of all Service Technicians, including those in Repair and Installation, considering Danna's history of seeking overtime. However, the court denied Danna's request for an additional 'historical multiplier' to further adjust her damages.

Sex DiscriminationSexual HarassmentTitle VIIBackpay AwardReinstatementPrejudgment InterestDamages CalculationOvertime CompensationService TechnicianHostile Work Environment
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 539 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