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. 034765412M
Regular Panel Decision

McAtee v. Environmental Control Board of the Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, Darin E McAtee, sought to annul a New York City Environmental Control Board (ECB) determination that found him in violation of Administrative Code § 28-404.1 and imposed a $4,800 fine. The violation stemmed from a window washing company hired by McAtee, whose worker lacked a rigger's license. McAtee argued that the Administrative Code section was vague as applied to nonsupervisory homeowners and that New York Labor Law preempted local laws regarding window washers. The court found that the ECB's interpretation of the statute had no rational basis, as the code's language did not apply to homeowners who neither hoisted nor supervised the work. Consequently, the court granted McAtee's petition, annulled the ECB's determination, and dismissed the notice of violation.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationHomeowner LiabilityBuilding CodesRigger LicenseDue ProcessPreemptionNew York City
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04897
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2018

Bund v. Higgins

Plaintiff Ronald Bund, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from a roof while working for Raymond M. Devore, who was hired by defendants David P. Higgins and Linda M. Higgins to install a roof on their single-family home. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were exempt from Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) liability as one-family dwelling owners who did not direct or control the work. The Appellate Division agreed, finding that defendants, despite acting as general contractors by obtaining permits and purchasing materials, did not supervise or control the method and manner of plaintiff's work, as evidenced by their non-presence during the roofing work and Devore's responsibility for worker safety. The court also concluded that defendants were not liable under common-law negligence or Labor Law § 200 because the alleged dangerous condition arose from the contractor's methods, and defendants exercised no supervisory control. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order denying summary judgment was reversed, and the complaint against David P. Higgins and Linda M. Higgins was dismissed.

Labor Law ExemptionOne-Family Dwelling OwnersSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilitySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceRoofing AccidentConstruction InjuryOwner LiabilityAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cuartas v. Kourkoumelis

The plaintiff was injured at a construction site on property owned by defendant Tomis Kourkoumelis when a manhole cover fell on his foot. The plaintiff and a co-worker were attempting to open the manhole cover with a crowbar. The plaintiff alleged Kourkoumelis directed him to clean debris from the retention tank. The Supreme Court denied Kourkoumelis's cross-motion for summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, finding issues of fact about his supervision and control. The appellate court reversed the decision, stating there was no evidence of a dangerous condition with the manhole cover and Kourkoumelis's instruction did not demonstrate direction or control over the plaintiff's work. The court emphasized that landowner liability requires exercising supervision and control over the work or actual/constructive notice of a dangerous condition, or directing the manner of work, not just general supervisory authority. Consequently, the cross-motion was granted, and the complaint was dismissed against Tomis Kourkoumelis.

Construction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceOwner LiabilitySupervision and ControlDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury Damages
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. New York City Housing Authority

Plaintiff, an employee of S.J.K. Contracting Corp. (SJK), was injured while operating a forklift at a housing project owned by defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Plaintiff alleged NYCHA was negligent and violated Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) by failing to supervise and control SJK's work. The accident occurred when the forklift's wheels slid off an unseen curb, causing it to tip. NYCHA moved for summary judgment. The court found that NYCHA could not be liable under Labor Law § 200 because it did not control SJK's training or work methods and lacked knowledge of the plaintiff's inadequate training. However, the court denied summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 241 (6), stating that liability under this section is vicarious and nondelegable for owners, even without control over the work, and can extend to improper procedures by subcontractors. Therefore, NYCHA's motion for summary judgment was granted concerning Labor Law § 200 but denied concerning Labor Law § 241 (6).

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Forklift AccidentWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityContractor NegligenceVicarious LiabilityNondelegable DutyConstruction Site
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. LeChase

Plaintiff, an employee of Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while disconnecting electric service at an apartment complex. The complex was owned by Chase Woods Manor, L.P., managed by Welker Property Management, Inc., and electrical work was performed by Douglas Bibby, d/b/a Bibby Electric. Plaintiff brought an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against all defendants. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of supervisory control and that they were not 'owners' of the specific equipment being worked on, nor did they hire or pay RG&E. Plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The court dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim due to lack of defendants' supervisory control and granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, denying plaintiff's cross-motion, finding that strict application of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) was unjust given the public utility context and defendants' lack of control over RG&E's work and equipment.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityPublic Utility EmployeeAbsolute LiabilityStatutory AgentSafe Place to Work
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 1989

Cannon v. Putnam

This case examines the scope of the dwelling-owner exemption under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241, which exempts owners of one and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work from certain safety duties. Defendant Albert Putnam owned a property with both residential and commercial uses. Plaintiff Robert Cannon was injured while installing a floodlight for aesthetic purposes related to Putnam's residence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decision, holding that the exemption applies when the commercial activities are housed in separate structures, and the work is unrelated to those commercial structures, focusing on the 'site and purpose of the work.' The court also found that Putnam did not direct or control the work.

Dwelling-owner exemptionLabor Law liabilitystatutory interpretationowner controlresidential propertycommercial propertyconstruction accidentpersonal injurynondelegable dutysite and purpose test
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,497 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