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
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. 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
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Infrastructure Repair Service, LLC

This court opinion addresses motions concerning expert testimony and the amendment of a bill of particulars in a construction site injury case. The defendant, Infrastructure Repair Service, LLC (GC), sought to preclude the plaintiff's expert engineer, Harlan Fair, from testifying on legal conclusions regarding violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) or OSHA regulations, which the court largely granted while allowing testimony on factual matters. The plaintiff cross-moved to amend his bill of particulars to include a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 (d) under Labor Law § 241 (6), which was denied due to the regulation's inapplicability to the use of an open tar bucket. However, the plaintiff's cross-motion to include violations of specific OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1926.16, 1926.28, 1926.102) was granted. The court applied the multi-employer doctrine, finding the GC potentially liable for safety conditions affecting subcontractor employees, especially since the GC provided the safety equipment.

Expert WitnessMotion PracticePleadings AmendmentConstruction AccidentWorkplace InjuryLabor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200OSHA StandardsGeneral Contractor ResponsibilitySubcontractor Employees
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2009

Rosario v. Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Center, Ltd.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Center, Ltd., from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to confirm a referee's report and partially granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The referee's report found that the plaintiff was injured while employed by the defendant on April 24, 2007, during the course of such employment. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status and injury in the course of employment should have been referred to the Workers' Compensation Board, as it has primary jurisdiction over such determinations. Additionally, the court found that the Supreme Court misapplied the doctrine of inconsistent positions or judicial estoppel because there was no prior legal proceeding where the defendant had successfully argued the plaintiff was its employee. The matter was remitted for a new determination of the plaintiff's cross-motion after resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryEmployment LawJudicial EstoppelPrimary JurisdictionAppellate PracticeSummary JudgmentReferee's ReportKings CountyCourt Procedure
References
7
Case No. ADJ8500471
Regular
Mar 05, 2013

CESAR ROBLES vs. FLORES AUTO REPAIR, FIRSTCOMP OMAHA for MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, Flores Auto Repair and its insurer, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed. The dismissal is based on the petition being filed untimely, specifically more than 20 days after the initial order plus 5 days for mailing. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report, which concluded the petition failed to meet the statutory deadline under Labor Code section 5903. Therefore, the WCAB ordered the petition for reconsideration dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDismissalOrderMarkel Insurance CompanyFlores Auto Repair
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1988

Richiusa v. Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co.

Cologero Richiusa suffered personal injuries at Flushing Truck Repair Co. and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits as an employee of Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc. Richiusa then initiated a negligence action against both Flushing Truck and Kahn Lumber. The Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court concluding that the workers' compensation award served as an exclusive remedy against Kahn and that Richiusa was a special employee of Flushing Truck, thereby barring the action against both defendants. The complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewNegligenceEmployment StatusStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 318 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