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. 2024 NY Slip Op 06315 [233 AD3d 555]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

Rodriguez v. Manhattan Restoration LLC

This case concerns an appeal where the plaintiff, Francisco Rodriguez, alleged negligent hiring, supervision, and retention against Manhattan Restoration LLC, a general contractor. Rodriguez was attacked by an employee of TMF Construction LLC, a subcontractor hired by Manhattan Restoration. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Manhattan Restoration. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding no vicarious liability as the assailant worked for the subcontractor, not Manhattan Restoration. The court also determined that Manhattan Restoration did not own the property, exercised only general supervisory authority, and lacked knowledge of the assailant's violent propensities. Furthermore, the argument regarding the absence of a safety manager was deemed speculative.

negligent hiringnegligent supervisionnegligent retentionvicarious liabilityrespondeat superiorconstruction projectsubcontractorgeneral contractorsummary judgmentduty to keep premises safe
References
5
Case No. CA 12-02373
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

ABBOTT, JONATHAN v. CROWN MILL RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT

The plaintiff, Jonathan Abbott, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall. A default judgment was entered against Crown Mill after it failed to appear at a damages inquest. Crown Mill moved to vacate the default judgment, citing law office failure and meritorious defenses, including that the Workers' Compensation Law barred recovery. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, affirming the denial to vacate the default judgment but granting the motion in part to vacate the default judgment only insofar as it awarded specific damages. The case was remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for a new assessment of damages. The court found Crown Mill failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and did not prove fraud or misrepresentation. Additionally, appeals related to an enforcement action based on piercing the corporate veil were dismissed or affirmed.

Default JudgmentVacaturDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewLaw Office FailureCorporate Veil PiercingNegligencePersonal InjuryAppealsJudicial Discretion
References
27
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00901
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Matter of Hernandez v. KNS Bldg. Restoration, Inc.

Claimant Guadalupe Hernandez sought workers' compensation benefits for knee and shoulder injuries sustained on his first day of work for KNS Building Restoration, Inc., who, along with insurer Zurich American Insurance Company, denied an employment relationship and coverage. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited the claimant's testimony, establishing the claim and finding KNS to be the responsible employer covered by a Zurich wrap-up policy, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the finding of an employer-employee relationship and the Board's credibility determinations. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's refusal to consider new evidence submitted for the first time on administrative review. The decision therefore upholds the finding that Hernandez was an employee of KNS and was injured at its construction site.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationInsurance CoverageConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewNew EvidenceWrap-up PolicyEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. 05 Civ. 0200 (CM)
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2008

Virga v. BIG APPLE CONST. & RESTORATION INC.

The plaintiffs, including John Virga and various Mason Tenders District Council Funds, sued defendants Big Apple Construction & Restoration Inc. and Kang Yeon Lee for unpaid fringe benefits, dues checkoffs, and Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The defendants failed to respond to discovery and a notice to admit, leading to a default judgment. The court initially granted summary judgment, awarding damages but denying imputed audit costs. Upon reconsideration, the court reversed its decision regarding audit costs, finding that a 'catch-all' provision in the CBA allowed for their recovery. The motion for reconsideration was granted, and imputed audit costs were awarded in addition to the previously granted damages.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementFringe BenefitsDues CheckoffsPAC ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentPersonal LiabilityAudit Costs
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04574
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

Matter of Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. State of New York Dept. of Labor

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Suburban Restoration Co., Inc., and others, challenging a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Labor. The Commissioner found that Suburban willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to employees on three public work projects, falsified payroll records, and assessed a 16% annual interest on underpayments along with a 15% civil penalty. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the determination and found it to be supported by substantial evidence. The court upheld the Commissioner's findings regarding underpayments, willful non-compliance, falsified records, and the method of calculating back wages, as well as the proportionality of the civil penalty.

Prevailing WagesPublic WorksWage UnderpaymentFalsified Payroll RecordsCivil PenaltyLabor Law ComplianceArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceEmployer Liability
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reitman v. Sobol

The petitioner, a certified social worker, sought to restore his professional license after surrendering it in 1988 following a guilty plea to sodomy. His 1992 application for restoration was denied by the Board of Regents. Subsequently, the petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding in this Court to challenge the denial. The Court determined it lacked original jurisdiction to review the denial of a professional license restoration application, citing that such proceedings must be commenced in Supreme Court without specific statutory authority for direct appellate review. Consequently, the petition was dismissed due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Professional MisconductLicense RestorationCPLR Article 78Subject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewBoard of RegentsSocial WorkerDenial of ApplicationNew York LawProfessional Licensing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almanzar v. Rye Ridge Realty Co.

Plaintiffs initiated a negligence action in 1982 against Rye Ridge Realty, Veemac Elevator, and Accessories By Pearl after an elevator fall in 1981, leading to multiple injuries. The case was marked off the calendar in 1993 due to a plaintiff's unavailability and subsequently dismissed in 1994 under CPLR 3404 for failure to restore within one year. Plaintiffs' motion to restore the action in 1997, citing excuses like a pending workers' compensation claim and medical treatment, was granted by the motion court. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the four criteria for restoration: a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for delay, lack of intent to abandon, and no prejudice to the non-moving party. Consequently, the action was dismissed, and a subsequent appeal for renewal and reargument was dismissed as academic.

NegligencePersonal InjuryElevator AccidentMotion to RestoreAction DismissalCPLR 3404Failure to ProsecutePresumption of AbandonmentPrejudiceAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2002

Muscarella v. Herbert Construction Co.

A construction worker (plaintiff) sustained injuries in 1994, leading to a lawsuit under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. A motion for summary judgment was partially granted, dismissing the § 241 claim. The case was marked off the trial calendar pending an appeal, which was affirmed in 1999. Nearly three years later, the plaintiff successfully moved to restore the action, citing law office failure for the delay. The appellate court affirmed the restoration, concluding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious claim under Labor Law § 200, a reasonable excuse for delay, no intent to abandon, and that restoration would not prejudice the defendant, despite the defendant company having dissolved in 1996.

Construction injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmenttrial calendar restorationCPLR 3404law office failureappellate affirmationprejudicedelay in prosecutionworkers' rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2004

Sienicki v. 760 West End Avenue Owners, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict on damages and defendant Restore-It's cross-motion regarding liability and loss of services, but ordered a new trial on past medical expenses unless plaintiffs agreed to a reduction. The injured plaintiff suffered a fractured ankle, ligament tears, and underwent two operations, with a third pending. Three years post-accident, he still experiences pain, limps, and uses a cane, impacting his former activities as a construction worker and athlete. The jury's awards of $25,000 each for past and future pain and suffering were deemed inadequate, deviating materially from reasonable compensation. The court ordered a new trial on these damages unless Restore-It stipulated to increase the awards to $100,000 and $150,000, respectively. The $100,000 award for loss of services was affirmed, acknowledging the spouse's increased work and the husband's withdrawal. The defendant's argument regarding past medical expenses was found unavailing.

InjuryDamagesPain and SufferingLoss of ServicesVerdictAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryMedical ExpensesJury AwardFractured Ankle
References
4
Case No. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 620 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