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

Plumbing Industry Board, Plumbing Local Union No. 1 v. L & L Masons, Inc.

Plaintiff Plumbing Industry Board (PIB) sued E.W. Howell and American Home Assurance Construction Co., Inc., seeking unpaid fringe benefit contributions under New York's Lien Law and as a third-party beneficiary to a contract. The defendants removed the action to federal court, asserting that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempted PIB's state law claims and moved for summary judgment. PIB cross-moved for a remand to state court. The court determined that ERISA preempted both New York Lien Law § 5 and PIB's common law contract claims, ruling that the Lien Law created an obligation not permitted under ERISA and the contract claim created a new theory of recovery. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied PIB's motion to remand, and dismissed all claims.

ERISA pre-emptionNew York Lien LawFringe benefit contributionsSummary judgmentThird-party beneficiary contractCollective bargaining agreementEmployee benefit planSurety bondSubcontractor defaultFederal jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01871 [236 AD3d 598]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Mondrangon v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.

Plaintiff Adan Mondrangon initiated an action against The Trustees of Columbia University after allegedly tripping over plumber's net and pipes in the basement of a university building. Columbia University subsequently filed a third-party complaint against Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp., their plumbing contractor, seeking indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, attributing responsibility for the hazardous condition to Absolute. Absolute Plumbing & Heating Corp. moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, presenting evidence that their recent work did not involve the materials cited. However, the court found triable issues of fact arising from conflicting deposition testimonies, particularly concerning whether Absolute had worked on the basement project and could have been the source of the materials. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying Absolute's motion for summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, concluding that credibility issues were for a jury to determine.

Premises liabilitypersonal injurysummary judgmentindemnificationbreach of contractthird-party claimconflicting testimonytriable issues of factAppellate DivisionNew York courts
References
3
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
Aug 17, 2009

L&L Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Garadice, Inc.

Plaintiff, an unlicensed entity, contracted with a general contractor to provide plumbing and HVAC services for a residence owned by defendant Miller. Defendants withheld payment, alleging licensing violations under the Administrative Code of City of NY for plumbing work not performed or supervised by a licensed master plumber. The court modified the lower court's summary judgment, reinstating plaintiff's claims for HVAC services as these do not require plumbing licenses. While plaintiff's subcontracting for sewer work was deemed compliant, other plumbing work lacked adequate proof of supervision, though such a violation wouldn't forfeit fees. Additionally, the plaintiff's mechanic's lien was invalidated due to procedural defects regarding the affidavit of service and timely notice of pendency under the Lien Law.

Licensing requirementsPlumbing servicesHVAC servicesSummary judgment motionSubcontractingLien LawMaster plumberConstruction disputeContract disputeUnlicensed contractor
References
3
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00606 [191 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Pisarski v. Accurate Plumbing & Heating Co.

Claimant Michael Pisarski established a workers' compensation claim for occupational bilateral knee and shoulder injuries after retiring as a union plumber. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately set the date of disablement as July 12, 2016, and a Worker's Compensation Law Judge ruled Norguard Insurance Company, which covered the employer during Pisarski's last employment, was the liable carrier, as no active policy was found on the disablement date. Norguard appealed, distinguishing its case from Matter of Cammarata, where the employer had ceased business. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred by not determining the business status of Accurate Plumbing and Heating Co. on the date of disablement. This determination is crucial to establish whether Accurate Plumbing was required to maintain an insurance policy or if the Uninsured Employers Fund should be responsible. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDate of DisablementInsurance Carrier LiabilityUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewRemittalBusiness Status DeterminationPolicy CoverageKnee Injury
References
6
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

Local 201, United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Shaker, Travis & Quinn, Inc.

This case arises from a work assignment dispute between Local 38 and Local 201 regarding the fabrication of plastic inspection boxes for Shaker, Travis & Quinn, Inc. Local 201 sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Shaker from assigning work to Local 38 and to compel tripartite arbitration. Shaker moved to stay arbitration, citing a pending NLRB 10(k) proceeding, while Local 38 moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied Shaker’s stay, affirming the national policy favoring arbitration. Local 201’s injunction request was denied due to insufficient proof of irreparable harm. Local 38’s motion to dismiss was also denied, with the court asserting jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Ultimately, the court granted Local 201's request for tripartite arbitration, deeming it the most sensible and efficient method for resolving the three-sided dispute.

work assignment disputelabor union disputearbitration injunctionpreliminary injunctionsubject matter jurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRAtripartite arbitrationNational Labor Relations BoardNLRB 10(k) proceeding
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaferstein v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

This case addresses the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to a plaintiff injured while lowering a pipe into a building's basement from sidewalk level. The plaintiff, an employee of General Plumbing Corp., was lowering an 11-foot, 200-300 pound pipe into a shaft 18 feet below the sidewalk when it free fell, injuring his arm, which was attached to the pipe by a rope. Defendants argued the section was inapplicable as the plaintiff was not working at an 'elevation' and the pipe was being lowered. The court, referencing precedents, found that the work involved 'risks related to differences in elevation' and the injury directly resulted from the 'application of the force of gravity.' Consequently, Labor Law § 240 (1) was deemed applicable, and defendants were found to have failed to provide the mandated protection. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under this section was granted, and the defendants' motions were denied.

Labor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentElevation RiskGravityConstruction AccidentPipe LoweringSidewalk InjuryWorker SafetyEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Defendant
References
20
Case No. CA 13-00513
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2014

DRYDEN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOESSL, STANLEY

Plaintiff Dryden Mutual Insurance Company initiated an action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Stanley Goessl in an underlying tort action, which arose from a fire during plumbing work. Defendants AP Daino & Plumbing, Inc. and its insurer, The Main Street America Group, also denied coverage for Goessl. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Dryden Mutual and against Main Street America Group. However, the Appellate Division reversed this judgment, declaring that Dryden Mutual is obligated to defend and indemnify Goessl and reimburse his attorney's fees, based on his status as a sole proprietor insured by them. Conversely, The Main Street America Group was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Goessl, as he was deemed an independent contractor, not an employee of AP Daino, according to their policy's plain meaning and their business arrangement. Sconiers, J., dissented, arguing that the trial court's finding of Goessl as an employee should have been upheld.

Insurance coverage disputeBusiness liabilityIndependent contractor classificationEmployee statusDuty to indemnifyDuty to defendSubcontracting agreementDeclaratory judgment actionAppellate review of judgmentContract interpretation
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 6,851 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