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. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1990

United States v. County of Nassau

The case involves the United States and the State of New York (Regulators) moving to hold the County of Nassau and its Department of Public Works (Nassau) in contempt of a Consent Decree or to modify it, due to Nassau's failure to comply with sludge management milestones. Nassau cross-moved to compel payment from a trust account. The court found Nassau in violation of the Decree's provisions but denied the contempt motion because Nassau was paying stipulated penalties. The court also denied the Regulators' motion to modify the Decree by increasing penalties, citing that the existing penalties were agreed upon and additional fines would be punitive against taxpayers. Finally, the court denied Nassau's cross-motion for trust fund disbursement, supporting EPA's decision to withhold funds until Nassau complies with the Decree's construction requirements. The court affirmed that Nassau must pay stipulated penalties for the first day of non-compliance.

Environmental LawConsent DecreeSewage Sludge ManagementOcean Dumping Ban ActStipulated PenaltiesCivil ContemptContract InterpretationMunicipal LawTrust FundsEPA Enforcement
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bounds v. State

The case involves an appeal concerning a claimant injured while participating in the Work Experience Program (WEP) at Cayuga Lake State Park, subsequently suing the State of New York under Labor Law § 240 (1). The initial Court of Claims decision granted partial summary judgment to the claimant. However, the appellate court determined that while the claimant was an employee of Seneca County, a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether he was also a 'special employee' of the State of New York. This 'special employee' status is crucial as it could invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, thereby barring his claim. Consequently, the appellate court modified the judgment by denying both the claimant's motion for partial summary judgment and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, affirming the judgment as modified.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeLabor LawScaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPublic AssistanceWork Experience ProgramEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Case No. 136 F.Supp.3d 385
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 2016

Kelly v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Plaintiff Sharon Kelly, a registered nurse, initiated this action against her former employers, the New York State Office of Mental Health and the Brooklyn Children’s Center, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Kelly claimed she was discriminated against due to her anxiety, depression, and hypertension, citing instances like an alleged assault, failure to investigate, a hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The court, presided over by Judge Matsumoto, determined that Kelly failed to plausibly allege she had a disability within the meaning of the Act or that she experienced adverse employment actions or a hostile work environment. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and all of Kelly's claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActEmployment RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeMotion to DismissFederal Court DecisionMental Health ImpairmentPhysical ImpairmentPro Se Litigation
References
100
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01479 [169 AD3d 1328]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2019

Santos v. State of New York

Agnaldo Dos Santos, an employee of P.S. Bruckel, Inc., was injured in November 2015 while working on a bridge owned by the State of New York, sustaining a fractured ankle after falling through an opening in a temporary deck during sandblasting. He commenced an action against the State under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Court of Claims granted Dos Santos's motion for partial summary judgment on liability and denied the State's motion to dismiss the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the opening in the deck constituted an elevation-related risk and that Dos Santos was not the sole proximate cause of the accident, as there was no evidence he was instructed to cover the opening or request it be covered.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardScaffold defectSummary judgmentProximate causeAppellate reviewPersonal injuryConstruction accidentBridge workFractured ankle
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2005

Irizarry v. State

Carlos Irizarry, an employee, was injured by an explosion in an electrical box while working at Pilgrim State Hospital. His employer was hired to correct a major power outage problem. The Court of Claims initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the entire claim. However, the appellate court modified this decision, denying the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim due to existing questions of fact regarding the defendant's duty to provide a reasonably safe workplace. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was affirmed, as the claimant was not engaged in "construction work" as defined by the Industrial Code.

personal injurieselectrical explosionsummary judgmentlabor lawworkplace safetyindustrial codeconstruction workemployer liabilityappellate reviewpremises liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companies v. Brooks

This action arises from an alleged overpayment of no-fault benefits by State Farm to James Brooks. Brooks, injured in an automobile accident, received lost earnings benefits from State Farm, but was later furloughed from his job due to lack of work, not his injury, yet continued to receive full benefits. State Farm sought to recover the alleged overpayment, arguing an insurance regulation (11 NYCRR 65.6 (n) (2) (vi)) required a reduction to unemployment benefits if the position would have been lost regardless of the accident. The court, in a case of first impression, found this regulation invalid as applied to Brooks, conflicting with the Insurance Law's purpose of compensating for actual economic loss. Consequently, summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant, James Brooks.

No-fault insuranceAutomobile accidentOverpayment of benefitsLost earningsUnemployment benefitsInsurance Law interpretationSummary judgmentStatutory conflictRegulation validityEconomic loss
References
13
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06268
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2024

Quick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Gary Quick, injured in an employment-related accident while driving a Peterbilt tractor-trailer leased by his employer, Casa Builders, Inc., sought no-fault benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. after his employer was found not to carry workers' compensation insurance. State Farm denied the claim, asserting that workers' compensation was the primary source of recovery, even if through the Uninsured Employers' Fund. Quick challenged this, arguing he couldn't apply for workers' compensation. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to State Farm, finding Quick failed to pursue Uninsured Employers' Fund benefits first. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that workers' compensation, through the Uninsured Employers' Fund if the employer is uninsured, is primary to no-fault benefits for work-related injuries, thus upholding the dismissal of Quick's complaint.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsurancePrimary JurisdictionUninsured Employers' FundSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00954 [147 AD3d 808]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Aragona v. State of New York

The claimant, a dock builder employed by Modern Continental Construction Co., Inc., was injured after tripping on a pad eye on a work barge. The incident occurred while he was carrying materials along a corridor created by lumber and construction material. The claimant filed a claim against the State of New York under Labor Law § 241 (6), alleging a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1). The Court of Claims found the State 70% at fault for the accident, entering an interlocutory judgment. The defendant appealed, but the Appellate Division affirmed the interlocutory judgment, concluding that the claimant tripped in a passageway and that the pad eye was not an integral part of the construction.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 241 (6)Tripping HazardIndustrial Code ViolationAppellate ReviewInterlocutory JudgmentComparative NegligenceWork BargeNondelegable Duty
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 17,161 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