Food machinery repair and maintenance services · New York

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island

Long Island City, NY · ~29 workers · 5 years of OSHA Injury Tracking Application data.

F
Failing Safety Record
4.6
Avg TCR
2.1
Industry avg
0
Fatalities
Subscribe to safety-record updates (RSS)

The verdict

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island runs at 217% of its industry's injury rate - far more dangerous than the typical Food machinery repair and maintenance services workplace, earning a grade F.

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island: 4.6 TCR = 217% of Food machinery repair and maintenance services BLS 2.1 · 5y Form 300A (see methodology below)

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island safety composite

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island scores strongest on fatalities (safer than 51% of same-industry peers) and weakest on total case rate (tcr) (safer than 25%), blended into one 0-100 breakdown against same-industry peers. A missing measure drops out and redistributes its weight rather than deflating the score. This is a per-dimension breakdown, distinct from the single letter grade above it (which weights TCR alone against the BLS industry benchmark).

F

32/100

Percentile-weighted across 3 of 3 measures

Total Case Rate (TCR)
F 4.56 per 100 workers

Safer than 25% of industry peers

DART rate
F 2.72 per 100 workers

Safer than 27% of industry peers

Fatalities
D 0

Safer than 51% of industry peers

Benchmarked live against every credibly-rated employer in the same NAICS industry code in the current OSHA extract (a segment must have at least 8 rated peers to benchmark). Not a legal or compliance determination; PlainSafetyScore's own weighting (TCR 40%, DART 35%, fatalities 25%).

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island held a steady TCR band

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island's TCR held near 0.1 from 2.8 in 2016 to 2.7 in 2020. Peak filing year was 2018 at 6.4 TCR. In 2020, DART was 0.6× this establishment's average TCR (severity share of cases).

2016=2.8 · 2017=5.2 · 2018=6.4 · 2019=5.7 · 2020=2.7

OSHA ITA Form 300A scorecard

Establishment book 811310 · Long Island City, NY ABOVE-IND · SMALL

Grade F · TCR 4.6 · 217% of ind

  • DART 2.7 DART
  • RANK #43/67
  • PHOTO Fairchild Equipment …
  • BOOK 5y book
  • INJ 8 inj
  • SIZE ~29 FTE

Nearest TCR peer: Fairchild Equipment - Bloomington (0.0 TCR gap)

Read with this employer → · Industry book → · New York employers → · Look up another →

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island in the TCR neighbourhood

Average Total Case Rate among this establishment and nearest same-industry peers

TCR

What this shows Hobart Service, New York/Long Island averages 4.6 TCR (217% of the Food machinery repair and maintenance services BLS benchmark).

Source U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Injury Tracking Application (Form 300A) As of 2026-08-25

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island TCR series: 2016=2.8 · 2017=5.2 · 2018=6.4 · 2019=5.7 · 2020=2.7 · BLS 2.1

Where Hobart Service, New York/Long Island falls in its industry

2,560 Food machinery repair and main establishments

Safer than 25% of graded establishments in this industry, whose median TCR is 2.7.

More dangerous than peersSafer than peers

Narrower to New York alone (the establishments it most directly competes with for workers and contracts): ranked #43 safest of 67 Food machinery repair and main employers in New York.

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island (29 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 45 employees and a TCR of 2.7 2×2 strategic matrix plotting 30 entities by Average employees (X) and Total Case Rate (Y), with a crosshair dividing the plot into four quadrants. Larger & higher-riskSmaller & higher-riskLarger & saferSmaller & safer than peers 0100200300400500 0246810 Average employees Total Case Rate Hobart Service, New York/Long Island
Hobart Service, New York/Long Island (29 employees, TCR 4.6) among 29 same-industry peers, split at the industry median of 45 employees and a TCR of 2.7

Hobart Service, New York/Long Island has fewer employees than the Food machinery repair and maintenance se median and a higher injury rate than the industry's median TCR of 2.7. Workforce size and injury rate do not always move together within the same industry -- some of its smaller peers run higher rates than its larger ones, and vice versa.

Year-by-Year Safety Data

Year TCR DART Injuries Illnesses Fatalities
2020 2.7 2.7 1 0 0
2019 5.7 5.7 2 0 0
2018 6.4 6.4 2 0 0
2017 5.2 5.2 2 0 0
2016 2.8 2.8 1 0 0

OSHA ITA peer cross-reference

Establishment peer ledger

811310 · NY · Long Island City

2,560 Food machinery repair and maintenance services employers nationwide with a credible TCR · 21,008 rated employers in New York with headcount on file · 160 employers in Long Island City, NY · 4 cross-state NAT-TCR peers · 4 cross-state NAT-SIZE peers. Closest matches by relationship code are listed below.

Rel Establishment Metric
NAICS-TCR Fairchild Equipment - Bloomington 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Houston Mayo Shell CGI 4.6 TCR
NAICS-TCR Pena's Mechanical Contractors Inc. 4.5 TCR
NAICS-TCR Richmond 4.6 TCR
STATE-SIZE Walnut Ridge Dairy LLC 29 FTE
STATE-SIZE RG&E Canandaigua 29 FTE
STATE-SIZE NYSEG Norwich 29 FTE
STATE-SIZE Noble Wind Operations Churubusco NY 29 FTE
CITY-NEAR Collins Building Services 3,480 FTE
CITY-NEAR Long Island City Facility 2,244 FTE
CITY-NEAR New York City Department of Design & Construction 1,034 FTE
CITY-NEAR E-J Electric Installation Co. 1,006 FTE
NAT-TCR 42411b - Dayton 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Corunna Rd. Store 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR 6787 Methodist Rehab Hospital 4.6 TCR
NAT-TCR Ross store 1721 4.6 TCR
NAT-SIZE 0000000123 Quick Chek Food Stores 29 FTE
NAT-SIZE 0000000167 Quickchek Food Stores 29 FTE
NAT-SIZE Advanced Disposal - Charleston 29 FTE
NAT-SIZE Chula Vista Marina/RV Park LTD 29 FTE

Rel codes: NAICS-TCR · STATE-SIZE · CITY-NEAR · NAT-TCR/NAT-SIZE cross-state. Read with this employer →

Data Source: OSHA Injury Tracking Application (ITA), mandatory establishment-level injury/illness reports. Grades compare employer Total Case Rate (TCR) to BLS IIF industry benchmarks. Data covers years reported by this establishment: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016. This is publicly available government data - not a legal determination of workplace conditions.
Data sourced from official public datasets. See our methodology for details.