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. 2023 NY Slip Op 06763 [222 AD3d 1013]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2023

Rodriguez v. 27-11 49th Ave. Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Tomas Rodriguez, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendant Mana Products, Inc., dismissing the complaint against it. Rodriguez had sued 27-11 49th Avenue Realty, LLC, and Mana after a slip and fall in a factory. The defendants argued that the complaint against Mana was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, claiming Rodriguez was Mana's special employee. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendants established a prima facie case for summary judgment based on Rodriguez's deposition testimony, indicating Mana controlled his work details, thus establishing a special employment relationship as a matter of law.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary Judgment GrantPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate Division Second DepartmentControl over WorkEmployer LiabilityPlaintiff's AppealDefendant's MotionSlip and Fall Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2012

Next Phase Distribution, Inc. v. John Does 1-27

Plaintiff Next Phase Distribution, Inc. filed a motion seeking leave for early discovery to identify John Doe defendants who allegedly infringed copyright by downloading their pornographic film via BitTorrent. The Court initially ordered Next Phase to show cause why John Does 2-27 should not be severed. After reviewing Next Phase's response and considering a district-wide split in similar cases, the Court sua sponte exercised its discretion to sever and dismiss without prejudice all claims against John Does 2-27 due to potential for differing defenses, risk of false positives, and the sensitive nature of the subject matter. The Court then granted Next Phase’s Motion for Discovery solely for John Doe 1 and issued a protective order to maintain confidentiality, citing the need for information to identify John Doe 1 and the routine deletion of ISP logs.

Copyright InfringementBitTorrentPeer-to-peer networkJohn Doe defendantsExpedited discoverySeverance of claimsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 20(a)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 20(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 21Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 42(b)
References
24
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06918 [167 AD3d 27]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2018

Matter of Keanu S.

Keanu S., a juvenile delinquent, appealed the Family Court's denial of his renewed motion for specific findings to enable him to petition for special immigrant juvenile status (SIJS). The Family Court denied the motion, ruling that placement in a juvenile delinquency matter does not satisfy the dependency requirement of 8 USC § 1101 (a) (27) (J). The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed with the Family Court's determination, holding that Keanu S. was not an intended beneficiary of the SIJS provisions because his placement was due to criminal acts, not abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The Court affirmed the order, emphasizing that the SIJS scheme is intended for abused, neglected, or abandoned children, and that using juvenile delinquency adjudications as a conduit for SIJS would contradict congressional intent. The dissenting opinion argued that the plain language of the statute, federal immigration policy, and state law do not exclude children in juvenile delinquency placements from meeting the dependency requirement for SIJS.

Special Immigrant Juvenile StatusJuvenile DelinquencyDependency RequirementImmigration LawFamily Court DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationChild CustodyAbuse and NeglectAbandonment
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freilich v. Fleischer

This order affirms the denial of the defendant's motion to vacate a temporary injunction. The temporary injunction was originally granted on May 27, 1923. The court unanimously affirmed the denial, awarding twenty dollars in costs and disbursements, without providing a written opinion. The panel included Justices Martin, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, O’Malley, and Untermyer, JJ.

temporary injunctionmotion to vacateappellate decisionaffirmedcosts and disbursementsno opinionjudicial paneldenial of motioncivil procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2006

Toussaint v. Angello

The petitioners sought a determination that the respondent, Commissioner of Labor, violated Labor Law § 27-a (4) (b) by not adopting a safety standard recommended by the New York State Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Abatement Board. The Supreme Court denied this petition, and that decision was subsequently affirmed. The appellate court clarified that the statute does not compel the Commissioner to automatically promulgate all Board recommendations. Instead, it mandates consultation and a showing of necessity for any new standard. The Commissioner's decision to return the proposal for further review was therefore deemed a lawful exercise of authority, not arbitrary or capricious.

Labor LawSafety StandardsOccupational SafetyHazard Abatement BoardCommissioner of LaborStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawMinisterial Duty
References
2
Case No. No. 27
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

James Healy v. EST Downtown

This case concerns an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The plaintiff, James Healy, sought partial summary judgment under the statute, which requires certain contractors and property owners to provide safety devices for elevation-related risks during specific activities like "cleaning." The court applied a four-factor analysis from Soto v J. Crew Inc. to determine if the plaintiff's work constituted "cleaning." It found that the work was "routine," weighing against its classification as "cleaning" under the statute. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Labor LawElevation-Related RisksSummary JudgmentRoutine WorkCleaning ActivityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryCommercial PremisesSafety Devices
References
2
Case No. No. 27
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

The People v. Anthony Debellis

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Anthony Debellis for criminal possession of a weapon, ordering a new trial. The Court found that Debellis's counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a jury instruction on the statutory defense of voluntary surrender, which was supported by Debellis's testimony. Instead, counsel sought an inapplicable charge on temporary and lawful possession. The dissenting opinion argued that no reasonable view of the undisputed facts supported a voluntary surrender charge and that counsel's overall performance was not deficient.

Effective Assistance of CounselIneffective CounselJury InstructionsVoluntary Surrender DefenseCriminal Possession of a WeaponNew York Court of AppealsAppellate ReversalNew TrialLegal EthicsConstitutional Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balsamo v. City of New York

Patrick Balsamo, a New York City Police Officer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident when his RMP collided with another car, causing his left knee to strike an unpadded computer console. He filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law § 27-a as a predicate for a General Municipal Law § 205-e claim. The Supreme Court denied the City's motion for summary judgment on the GML § 205-e claim based on Labor Law § 27-a, finding it a sufficient predicate for a cause of action and that an issue of fact existed as to whether the console was a 'recognized hazard'. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that a violation of Labor Law § 27-a can serve as a predicate for a claim under General Municipal Law § 205-e.

General Municipal Law 205-eLabor Law 27-aPolice Officer InjuryWorkplace SafetyRecognized HazardMotor Vehicle AccidentComputer ConsoleSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Proulx v. Burnett Process

This case involves appeals from four decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning the application of amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (w) and 27 (2). The core issue is whether the mandatory deposit of Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) awards into the aggregate trust fund (ATF) under amended § 27 (2) applies retroactively to injuries sustained before the amendment's effective date of March 13, 2007, when the PPD awards themselves were made after July 1, 2007. The carriers argued against retroactive application and claimed that mandating lump-sum payments for uncapped PPD awards was speculative and violated equal protection rights. The Board, and subsequently the Appellate Division, affirmed the decisions, holding that the relevant date for applying the amendment to § 27 (2) is the date of the award, not the date of the accident, and that the calculations are not speculative as present value is legislatively mandated.

Workers' Compensation LawAggregate Trust FundPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationEqual ProtectionLump-Sum PaymentsAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPresent Value
References
7
Case No. ADJ1282717 (LBO 0332013) ADJ1437663 (LBO 0333033) ADJ1830483 (LBO 0332918)
Regular
Mar 24, 2011

SUSAN RICHARDSON vs. PROSPECT HEALTH SOURCE MEDICAL GROUP, JAMES DANIEL, DANA EISENMAN, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Nunc Pro Tunc Order corrects a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The applicant's attorney, Vernon Goldwater, was erroneously misidentified in the Award section of the January 27, 2011 Decision. The Order amends the Award nunc pro tunc to correctly identify Mr. Goldwater as the attorney entitled to a 12% fee for temporary disability indemnity. All other aspects of the January 27, 2011 Decision remain unchanged.

nunc pro tuncclerical errorcorrecting awardtemporary disability indemnityself-procured medical treatmentmedical-legal costsfuture medical treatmentGranite State Insurance CompanyState Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 282 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