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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Local 365 & Agricultural Implement Workers of America

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which directed the parties to proceed to arbitration and permitted J. Kenneth O’Connor, Esq., to act as attorney for the petitioner union. The appellate court modified the order by limiting arbitration to the issue of whether a supervisory employee, Clarence Martin, could return to the bargaining unit, based on the interpretation of Article X (subd 5, par [a]) of the agreement. The part of the order allowing J. Kenneth O’Connor to serve as attorney was deleted as his representation was withdrawn. The court also held that the dispute regarding union members' severance pay was non-arbitrable due to the National Labor Relations Board's sole jurisdiction over unfair labor practice allegations, specifically citing violations of sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act.

ArbitrationLabor LawNLRB JurisdictionCollective Bargaining AgreementSeverance PaySupervisory EmployeesBargaining UnitUnfair Labor PracticesLMRAContract Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Lynaugh

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning the validity of various absentee and special ballots cast in a November 5, 2013, general election for Councilmember, 4th Council District, Town of Brookhaven. Constance M. Kepert appealed parts of a Supreme Court order, and Michael A. Loguercio, Jr., cross-appealed other parts. The appellate court modified the lower court's determinations regarding the casting and canvassing of specific ballots. The modifications were based on voter intent derived from ballot markings, as well as adherence to Election Law regarding signature verification and timely ballot receipt. Ultimately, the court directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections not to cast or canvass ballots designated as exhibits 2, 8, and 17, and to cast and canvass ballots designated as exhibits 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Election DisputeBallot ValidityVoter IntentAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsCanvassing ProceduresElection Law Article 16Suffolk County ElectionsAppellate ReviewGeneral Election 2013
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1993

31 West 47th Street Co. v. Bevona

The case involves a petition to stay arbitration filed by 31 West 47th Street Co. and Lipton against Local 32B-32J, AFL-CIO. The dispute arose after 31 West stopped remitting membership benefit fund contributions, asserting the collective bargaining agreement had expired. The agreement contained an 'Evergreen Clause' stating it would remain in effect until a successor agreement was negotiated or cancelled with a three-day written notice, which 31 West failed to provide. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay, but the appellate court reversed, denying the petition and directing arbitration, emphasizing the 'Evergreen Clause' and that termination issues are for the arbitrator.

Collective bargaining agreementArbitration clauseEvergreen clauseUnion contributionsContract terminationAppellate reversalLabor relationsEmployer-employee disputeCommercial buildingNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nardolillo v. Sovinsky

Plaintiffs, members of the Tile, Marble and Terrazzo Helpers Subordinate Union No. 8, sought to recover funds contributed by their employer to a trust fund. They argued that the discontinuation of employer contributions rendered them ineligible for benefits, making the trust's purpose impossible and leading to unjust enrichment by the fund. Defendants countered that such payments would violate the trust agreement and IRS provisions, maintaining that plaintiffs remained eligible. The court determined that the fund was a common trust, not individual escrowed accounts, and upheld the trustees' interpretation that ensured plaintiffs' continued eligibility, preventing a forfeiture of rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion was denied, and the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted.

Union Trust FundEmployee BenefitsEmployer ContributionsTrust AgreementBenefit EligibilityFund AdministrationBreach of TrustFiduciary DutyDismissal MotionLabor-Management Relations Act
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,262 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