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

Field v. New York University

Plaintiff Walter Field, an employee of Exterior Erecting Services, Inc., sustained a crushing injury to his left hand while working on a mobile crane at a New York University renovation site. Field and his wife sued NYU, Corporate Interiors Contracting, Inc., Eastern Exterior Wall Systems, and Cranes, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The court granted summary judgment dismissing Field's complaint against NYU, Corp, and Eastern regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, finding the cited Industrial Code provisions either complied with or too general. The court denied motions to dismiss Cranes' third-party complaint against Eastern and Exterior, allowing Cranes to amend its complaint to allege 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Finally, the court denied summary judgment for NYU, Corp, and Eastern on their indemnification claims against Cranes, Inc. due to insufficient evidentiary support.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryMobile CraneOutriggerIndemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saxby v. LPS Field Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Saxby was injured after falling off a roof while performing property repairs for his company, Finger Lakes Property Services, at a property in foreclosure owned by First Union Corporation. First Union had contracted LPS Field Services for property preservation, which subsequently subcontracted through several intermediaries, eventually leading to Saxby's company. Saxby sued LPS, alleging common law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, with the case removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. LPS moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the negligent hiring claim, but denied the motion with respect to the remaining common law negligence and Labor Law claims, and granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to specify Industrial Code violations.

NegligenceLabor LawMotion to DismissConstruction AccidentProperty PreservationIndependent ContractorDuty of CareFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Casey

This case concerns an appeal by the Commissioner of Labor against a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which determined that an independent contractor relationship existed between Lark-field Lottery and a claimant. The claimant, hired by Lark-field to deliver lottery supplies and collect checks, used his own vehicle and paid his own expenses, with compensation based on stops completed. The Board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's finding of an independent contractor relationship, thus denying unemployment benefits. The appellate court, however, reversed the Board's decision, citing its failure to explain why it reached a different conclusion than prior agency determinations involving similar facts, where an employer/employee relationship was found. The matter was remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Independent ContractorUnemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewRemandSubstantial EvidenceArbitrary and CapriciousDelivery ServicesLabor Disputes
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02569 [237 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2025

Delcid-Funez v. Seasons at E. Meadow Home Owners Assn.

The plaintiff, Edwin Delcid-Funez, suffered personal injuries after falling approximately 30 feet from a condominium roof while shoveling snow, which he was doing for his employer in response to a leak complaint. He initiated an action against Seasons at East Meadow Home Owners Association, Inc., and Einsidler Management, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Both the plaintiff and the defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied both motions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that triable issues of fact remain regarding whether the plaintiff was engaged in an enumerated activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) and whether his actions constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSnow ShovelingRoof FallPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityElevated Work SiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
9
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
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rochester Club v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The petitioner, an employer, was charged with unfair labor practices by the New York State Labor Relations Board. Despite a trial examiner's recommendation to dismiss the complaint, the Board found unfair labor practices and ordered the matter reopened for further hearings to determine employee reinstatement and back pay. The petitioner initiated an Article 78 proceeding to review this Board order, which the Board moved to dismiss as non-final. The court held that under New York Labor Law, the Board's order, granting no relief and requiring further evidence, is an interlocutory order not subject to immediate judicial review. The court distinguished this from federal practice, where similar orders may be considered final, due to differences in state and federal procedural acts. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that a final order from the Board was still pending.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticeNew York State Labor Relations BoardArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chesterfield Associates v. New York State Department of Labor

This case addresses Chesterfield Associates' challenge to the New York Department of Labor's 'annualization' rule (12 NYCRR 220.2 [d]), used to assess compliance with the prevailing wage law (Labor Law art 8) on public projects. Chesterfield disputed the annualization of its profit-sharing pension contributions made on behalf of employees who worked on public projects in Nassau and Suffolk counties between 1994 and 1997. The annualization rule calculates an hourly cash equivalent of benefits by dividing total contributions by total annual hours worked (both public and private). Chesterfield argued this methodology effectively penalized contractors by demanding prevailing rates for private work or forcing cash supplements. The Commissioner of Labor, whose decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division and the Court of Appeals, determined that annualization was a reasonable method to value fringe benefits, prevent cost-shifting, and ensure fair competition among contractors.

Prevailing Wage LawAnnualization RuleLabor Law § 220Fringe BenefitsPension ContributionsPublic Works ProjectsContractor ComplianceProfit-Sharing PlanJudicial ReviewAdministrative Deference
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pyramid Co. v. New York State Department of Labor

The petitioner, Pyramid Co., challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor that its frontage road project in Syracuse, largely constructed on state land to provide access to its shopping mall, was subject to prevailing wage laws under Labor Law § 220. Despite being deemed a "public works project" due to its public benefit and eventual state acquisition, the court found that the Department of Transportation (DOT) was not a party to the construction contract, and the highway work permits issued by DOT did not constitute "contracts for construction." This failed to satisfy a key condition of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, and the petitioner's CPLR article 78 petition was granted.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works ProjectContract RequirementHighway Work PermitsDepartment of Labor DeterminationAnnulmentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingConstruction ProjectState LandCarousel Center
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 7,653 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