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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. 19094/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2012

5 Brothers, Inc. v. D.C.M. of New York, LLC

This case involves a dispute between a general contractor, D.C.M. of New York, LLC (DCM), and a subcontractor, Vintage Flooring & Tile Inc. (Vintage), stemming from a construction project for a Best Buy store. The parties had an arbitration agreement, and an arbitrator awarded Vintage $76,539.13. DCM moved to vacate this arbitration award, arguing it was irrational, against public policy, and indefinite, partly due to an alleged willfully exaggerated mechanic's lien by Vintage. Separately, Vintage moved to confirm the award. The court denied DCM's motion to vacate the award, finding that DCM failed to demonstrate the award was irrational or indefinite, and confirmed the arbitration award in favor of Vintage. The court also denied DCM's motion for summary judgment on its lien exaggeration claim, stating that the arbitration implicitly rejected the exaggeration claim by finding Vintage's claim meritorious.

Arbitration AwardVacaturConfirmationSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorMechanic's LienLien ExaggerationPublic PolicyIrrational AwardIndefinite Award
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santiago v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries after slipping and falling on a wet tile floor in defendant's ATM vestibule. It had snowed the previous night, leaving icy and slushy conditions outside. Plaintiff, wearing rubber boots, wiped his feet but fell on the tiled floor inside. Defendant's inclement weather procedures were discretionary, with no additional mats or warning signs present on the day of the accident. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendant, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether an unremedied recurring dangerous condition caused the injury. The dissenting opinion argued that general awareness of wetness from inclement weather does not constitute constructive notice and that property owners have no duty to continuously mop or cover floors entirely.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalInclement Weather ConditionWet Floor HazardConstructive Notice DoctrineRecurring Dangerous ConditionBank NegligenceDuty to Maintain Safe Premises
References
17
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05084
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2025

Matter of Gunderson v. New York City Employees' Retirement Sys.

The petitioner, an employee of the New York City Department of Sanitation, sought accidental disability retirement (ADR) benefits after falling on a loose vinyl floor tile and injuring his left shoulder. The Medical Board and the Board of Trustees of the New York City Employees' Retirement System (NYCERS) denied his application, concluding the fall was not an 'accident' because he was aware of the floor's disrepair. The Supreme Court upheld this denial. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, finding insufficient record support that the petitioner was aware of the particular hazard—that the vinyl floor tiles might shift under his weight. The court concluded that there was no rational, nonspeculative basis for the determination that the event was not an accident, thereby deeming the Board of Trustees' decision arbitrary and capricious. The petition was granted, the determination annulled, and the matter remitted to the Board of Trustees for further proceedings.

Accidental Disability RetirementPublic Employee BenefitsSlip and FallPremises LiabilityAdministrative Law ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingNYCERSMedical BoardAppellate ReviewHazard Awareness
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piazza v. Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (BMHA), sustained injuries after falling through a hole in an apartment floor while removing trash. BMHA had contracted Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc., operating as Spectra Contract Flooring, for flooring work, who in turn subcontracted Gregory Simmons, doing business as Simmons Flooring and Remodeling. After the kitchen floor was noted as "spongy," Simmons cut out portions, creating the hole. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. However, the appellate court modified this by denying those parts of the motions and reinstating the claims, finding defendants failed to establish they did not supervise the work, control the premises, or create/have notice of the dangerous condition. Conversely, the court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, ruling that the plaintiff's trash removal duties were not connected to construction activities as defined by that statute. The order was thus modified and affirmed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewSubcontractor Liability
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03117
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2017

Trinajstic v. St. Owner, LP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied motions for summary judgment. The case involves Thomas Trinajstic, a laborer, who fell during a renovation project and sued St. Owner, LP, and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. under Labor Law § 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party claim for common-law indemnification against Pat Pellegrini Flooring Corporation. The court found questions of fact regarding whether dust created by Pellegrini's workers contributed to Trinajstic's fall, thus barring dismissal of the Labor Law claim. Furthermore, summary resolution of the indemnification claim was deemed premature due to conflicting evidence on the cause of the fall (dust vs. broken tiles) and the defendants' failure to demonstrate a lack of their own negligence.

Labor Law § 241(6)Summary Judgment MotionCommon-Law IndemnificationAppellate DivisionConstruction Site AccidentThird-Party LitigationWorkplace Safety RegulationsDust HazardPremises Owner LiabilityContractor Negligence
References
4
Case No. 89 CV 3290
Regular Panel Decision

United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America v. Tile Helpers Union Local 88

This case involves three related actions where the plaintiff, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America ('Carpenters'), seeks to recover assets from unnamed defendant local unions. The local unions had disaffiliated from the Tile, Marble, Terrazzo, Finishers, Shop-workers and Granite Cutters International Union ('Tile Workers'), which subsequently merged into the Carpenters. The Carpenters assert that the local unions were obligated to forfeit their assets upon disaffiliation according to the Tile Workers' constitution. The defendant local unions raised affirmative defenses, challenging the Carpenters' standing by disputing the validity of the merger due to an allegedly improperly adopted constitutional amendment and a failure to disclose 'imprudent' investments. The court ruled that the defendant local unions lacked standing to challenge the internal union merger process and consequently struck their affirmative defenses. The court also denied the Carpenters' motion to add the Tile Workers as a plaintiff.

Union DisaffiliationAsset RecoveryLabor Union MergerStanding DoctrineAffirmative DefenseLabor LawInternal Union AffairsFederal JurisdictionWorkers' RightsConstitutional Amendment Challenge
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Perez v. Mondial Tiles, Inc.

Claimant, a marble floor laborer, experienced dizziness and saw lights on March 5, 2007, while carrying a heavy marble floor, leading to headaches and blurry vision. He later underwent a craniotomy and shunt placement due to a blood clot. After filing for workers' compensation, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found no causal relationship between his work and injuries. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, establishing a causal relationship. The carrier appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the medical opinions of treating physicians Dr. Larry Neuman and Dr. Spencer Golden, who both linked the claimant's stroke, cervical radiculopathy, and subsequent disability to the work-related straining and heavy lifting incident.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipStrokeCervical RadiculopathyHeavy LiftingDizzinessHemorrhagic StrokeCraniotomyAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dunn v. Landmark Flooring Concepts, Inc.

Decedent, a floor covering mechanic, died of a heart attack while working on a renovation project. His widow filed a death benefit claim, which was controverted by Landmark Flooring Concepts, Inc. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an employer-employee relationship and causal link to employment, dismissing the special employment issue as untimely. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed. Landmark appealed, arguing it was improperly denied the opportunity to develop the record on special employment. The appellate court found the request timely and that the record contained evidence supporting a special employment claim. The decision was reversed, and the matter remitted to the Board for further development of the record on the issue of special employment.

Special EmploymentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCausal RelationshipHeart AttackAppellate ReviewRemittalProcedural ErrorFactual DisputeSubstantial EvidenceTimeliness of Motion
References
6
Case No. ADJ4416816 (AHM 0140718); ADJ3554653 (AHM 014719)
Regular
Sep 22, 2010

MARK ROGERS vs. ALL ABOUT FLOORS, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES A.K.A WESTERN FLOORING INSTALLATIONS, PSI

This case involves Mark Rogers' claim for workers' compensation benefits for back injuries sustained while employed by All About Floors, Inc. and Barrett Business Services. The applicant alleged cumulative trauma injury, but medical evidence from Dr. Einbund was inconsistent. Despite Dr. Einbund's initial uncertainty and later inability to state with reasonable medical certainty that a cumulative trauma injury occurred, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony credible and supported by medical reports, thus deeming the medical opinion substantial evidence to uphold the findings of fact.

WCABReconsideration DeniedPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryMedical EvidenceCausation of InjuryDeposition TestimonyApplicant TestimonyJob DutiesSubstantial Medical Evidence
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 308 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