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
Nov 12, 2002

Venti v. EDS

Plaintiff Rose Venti sued her employer, EDS, alleging age discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL). Venti claimed EDS took adverse employment actions, including stripping her responsibilities and denying training, before terminating her as part of a company-wide reduction-in-force (RIF). The court granted EDS's motion for summary judgment, finding Venti failed to demonstrate that EDS's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. The decision also addressed the timeliness of Venti's claims under the continuing violation exception.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)PretextDiscriminatory IntentADEANYHRLTime-barred ClaimsContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Serrano v. 900 5th Avenue Corp.

Defendants Brown Harris Stevens Residential Management (BHS) and 900 5th Avenue Corp. (900 5th) moved to dismiss an employment discrimination case, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. BHS argued it was not the plaintiff's employer, while 900 5th contended it did not meet Title VII's 15-employee minimum for an employer. The court denied BHS's motion, determining that BHS significantly affected the employment opportunities at 900 5th through its contractual authority and actions related to hiring, firing, discipline, and labor relations, thus falling within the broad definition of an "employer" under Title VII. Conversely, the court granted 900 5th's motion, ruling that its employees could not be counted with BHS's under a "joint employer" theory to satisfy the 15-employee minimum, as such an interpretation would contradict the purpose of protecting small businesses from Title VII liability.

Employment discriminationSubject matter jurisdictionRule 12(b)(1) motion to dismissTitle VIIEmployer definitionJoint employer theoryFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory minimum employeesSupervisory authority
References
17
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02237 [237 AD3d 1001]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

Villalta v. Tonka Realty On 5th, LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Villalta, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). Villalta sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while working on a demolition project. Conflicting testimonies between Villalta and a worksite superintendent regarding the accident's cause created factual disputes, making summary judgment inappropriate for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. For the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (4) (i) concerning securely fastened portable ladders, the plaintiff also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order denying the summary judgment motion was affirmed.

Ladder AccidentDemolition ProjectWorkplace InjuryLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(4)(i)Summary Judgment MotionTriable Issues of FactProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Eddings v. Big Jim Service Center, Inc.

MISSING

Appellate ReviewAffirmation of OrderJudicial ConcurrenceCourt of AppealsMemorandum Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lafroscia v. MEPT 5th Avenue, LLC

The plaintiff, a journeyman for Able Rigging Contractors, allegedly sustained injuries on March 24, 2012, while constructing a tower crane at 309 Fifth Avenue, New York. He claims he slipped on oil and fell through an opening after unhooking his lanyard, which was too short to allow him to remain harnessed while moving between platforms. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a against defendants MEPT 5th Avenue, LLC and Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. The court denied the motion, finding an issue of fact regarding proximate cause for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and ruling that Labor Law § 241-a does not apply to tower cranes, as they are structures but not "buildings."

Summary JudgmentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241-aProximate CauseConstruction AccidentTower CranePersonal InjurySafety DevicesFall from HeightSlipped on Oil
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Azad v. 270 5th Realty Corp.

Abul Kaylam Azad, hired by 270 5th Realty Corp. to repair a gutter pipe, fell from an unsecured extension ladder placed on garbage. He sued for personal injuries, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially granted Azad's summary judgment motion on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court found Azad was not engaged in protected activities under Labor Law § 240(1) as his work was routine maintenance, and dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as the accident did not occur during construction, excavation, or demolition work. Additionally, claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were dismissed, as Azad's negligent placement of the ladder was deemed the sole cause of the accident, not the debris or the premises' condition.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law §240(1)Labor Law §241(6)Labor Law §200Routine MaintenanceCorporate VeilProximate CauseNegligence
References
20
Case No. ADJ7865036
Regular
Nov 05, 2012

ED HOFFMAN vs. BEST OVERNITE EXPRESS, INC., TOWER SELECT INSURANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Ed Hoffman, regarding a previous order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted this petition. The WCAB requires additional time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. This reconsideration is necessary to ensure a just and reasoned decision, and further proceedings may be held.

ADJ7865036WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDOPINION AND ORDERGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for ReconsiderationBEST OVERNITE EXPRESSTOWER SELECT INSURANCEstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1995

Brito v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

A judgment was entered on October 12, 1995, by the Supreme Court, Bronx County, in favor of the plaintiff against Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) for $530,000, which included future medical expenses and loss of earnings. The verdict apportioned liability 40% against Con Ed and 60% against third-party defendant Globe Fence Co. The appellate court modified the judgment, ruling that the trial court incorrectly denied Con Ed's motion for common-law indemnification against Globe. It was determined that Con Ed's liability was vicarious, as there was no evidence of them directing the work, thereby entitling Con Ed to full indemnification from Globe. Consequently, the judgment was modified to award Con Ed full indemnification against Globe, and otherwise affirmed.

IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityApportionment of LiabilityCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual ObligationSupervisionConstruction WorkThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewDamages
References
1
Case No. ADJ391084 (GOL 0102020) ADJ1292455 (GOL 0100312)
Regular
May 26, 2015

MICHAEL LOPEZ vs. ED & TED'S EXCELLENT LIGHTING, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANIES

This case involves two workers' compensation claims for applicant Michael Lopez against Ed & Ted's Excellent Lighting, insured by Redwood Fire & Casualty and Fireman's Fund Insurance Company. The Arbitrator found industrial injuries to Lopez's back and extremities and allocated partial liability to both insurers for the second injury period. Both insurers sought reconsideration, alleging clerical errors and disputes over liability allocation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct these clerical errors. The Board rescinded the original decision and returned the case to the Arbitrator for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderArbitratorIndustrial InjuryLumbar BackUpper ExtremitiesHerniaCumulative TraumaInsurance Company
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05813 [198 AD3d 564]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2021

Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Plaintiff Ramon Hernandez sued Consolidated Edison for negligence after his hand was pulled into a bread machine operating in reverse due to Con Ed's faulty rewiring of subterranean electrical cables. A jury found Con Ed negligent and awarded Hernandez damages for past and future pain and suffering, as well as lost earnings. Con Ed's motion to set aside the jury verdict was denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The court found that the trial evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdict regarding Con Ed's negligence and the awarded damages, and dismissed Con Ed's other contentions.

NegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryElectrical WiringDamages AwardPain and SufferingLost EarningsJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 46 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