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. 2019 NY Slip Op 07587 [176 AD3d 1069]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2019

Matter of Rosenberg v. Schwartz

The case involves Eric Rosenberg and Allan Schwartz, who were 50% owners of Blind Builders USA, Inc. They agreed to arbitrate their claims to the company's assets before a rabbinical arbitration tribunal, which issued an award including the distribution of accounts receivable. Rosenberg sought to confirm the award, while Schwartz moved to vacate it, arguing it was indefinite regarding the accounts receivable distribution. The Supreme Court confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division dismissed appeals from prior orders and an earlier judgment. It modified the December 23, 2016, judgment, finding the arbitration award indefinite as it did not clearly define how the accounts receivable incurred prior to the award date were to be distributed. Consequently, that portion of the award was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the rabbinical arbitration tribunal for further proceedings on that specific issue.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardAccounts ReceivableBusiness DisputePartnership DisputeRabbinical Arbitration TribunalIndefinite AwardNonfinal Award
References
10
Case No. No. 50; No. 51
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2019

John Kuzmich v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition, LLC, William T. West v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether apartments in buildings receiving tax benefits under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-g are subject to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The Court concluded that they are not, reversing the Appellate Division's decisions in two consolidated cases, John Kuzmich, et al. v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition LLC, and William T. West, et al. v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC, et al. The ruling hinged on the interpretation of RPTL 421-g (6), particularly its "notwithstanding" clause, which the Court found unambiguously subjects such units to full rent control, overriding conflicting RSL provisions for luxury deregulation during the benefit period. The Court rejected arguments from the defendants and the dissenting opinion that legislative intent and the lack of an explicit exemption in the RSL for 421-g buildings indicated the applicability of luxury decontrol. This decision ensures that apartments in buildings receiving 421-g benefits remain subject to rent stabilization protections.

Rent Stabilization LawLuxury DeregulationRPTL 421-g benefitsReal Property Tax LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentLower Manhattan Revitalization PlanRent Regulation Reform ActAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
27
Case No. 6784-17
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2018

Vincent Crisafulli Testamentary Trust v. AAI Acquisition, LLC

Plaintiff Vincent Crisafulli Testamentary Trust brought an action against AAI Acquisition, LLC and United Electric Power, Inc. to enforce the terms of an alleged commercial lease and guarantee. Plaintiff sought to recover money damages for breach of a Letter Agreement and a Guaranty, and also under an assumed Lease. The Supreme Court, Albany County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, finding the Letter Agreement a valid and binding contract and awarding $193,350.23 in damages. However, the motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action (breach of Guaranty) was denied, as the court found the record insufficiently developed to establish United Inc.'s liability. The third cause of action, concerning the assumed Lease, was dismissed because the Letter Agreement superseded the original Lease.

Contract LawCommercial LeaseSummary Judgment MotionBreach of ContractGuaranty AgreementStatute of FraudsCondition PrecedentDamages AwardCounsel FeesCorporate Liability
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2003

Peycke v. Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of DSA Community Publishing, was allegedly injured after a slip and fall on ice in an office parking lot. She initiated an action for personal injuries against Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc., the building owner, and A. Ciesinski Snow Plowing, Inc., the company responsible for snow removal. The Supreme Court denied Newport's motion for summary judgment but granted A. Ciesinski's cross-motion. On appeal, the cross-appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed. The appellate court modified the order, affirming the denial of summary judgment for Newport but denying A. Ciesinski's motion to dismiss Newport's cross-claim for indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation DefenseTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewNegligenceBuilding Owner Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamberson v. Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Lamberson, a Caucasian male, sued his employer, Six West Retail Acquisition Inc., and individuals Sheldon Solow and Jeffery Jacobs, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law. Lamberson claimed he was unlawfully discharged after complaining about the reassignment of an African-American employee, Derrick Caver, from a public-facing role due to his appearance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamberson was fired for poor managerial judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding Lamberson, as a Caucasian, was not a member of a protected class and failed to show a hostile work environment or infringement on his right to interracial association. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, ruling that Lamberson raised a triable issue as to whether his complaints about Caver's reassignment were protected activity and if there was a causal connection to his discharge. Consequently, retaliation claims against Six West, Solow, and Jacobs survive.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawUnlawful DischargeSummary JudgmentManagerial DutiesEmployee ReassignmentHostile Work Environment
References
43
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02363
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2022

Lewis v. 96 Wythe Acquisition LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal in a personal injury case where plaintiff William Lewis was struck by an unsecured metal beam at a construction site. The lower court had granted Lewis summary judgment on his common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims. However, the appellate court modified this decision, denying Lewis's motion for summary judgment. This denial was based on inconsistent deposition testimonies from Lewis regarding how the accident occurred, creating a triable issue of fact. Additionally, the court conditionally granted defendants 96 Wythe Acquisition LLC and Dimyon Development Corp.'s motion for summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against All Island Masonry & Concrete, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentFactual DisputeWitness CredibilitySafety Device Failure
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00019 [190 AD3d 422]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2021

Lemache v. MIP One Wall St. Acquisition, LLC

Plaintiff Luis Lemache was injured when a pipe rolled onto his foot while relocating a concrete planter at a construction site. He sued MIP One Wall Street Acquisition, LLC and Gilbane Residential Construction, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but modified the order, denying defendants' motion with respect to the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The court found a triable issue of fact as to whether Gilbane Residential Construction exercised supervisory control over the work, particularly regarding safety standards and the use of licensed Bobcat operators.

Summary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentSupervisory ControlTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkForeman
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Avon Associates, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by defendants mortgagors to vacate an ex parte order appointing a receiver during a mortgage foreclosure action. Defendants asserted that the lack of notice for the receiver's appointment violated CPLR 6401 and their Federal constitutional due process rights, citing Fuentes v Shevin. The court found that New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1325 (subd 1) permits ex parte receiver appointments when the mortgage contract explicitly waives notice. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from Fuentes, concluding that the sophisticated business operators involved had knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to notice, akin to the circumstances in Overmyer Co. v Frick Co. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the validity of the ex parte order and denied the defendants' motion to vacate the appointment of the receiver.

Mortgage ForeclosureReceiver AppointmentEx Parte OrderDue ProcessWaiver of NoticeContractual WaiverCPLRReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawConstitutional LawBusiness Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1999

In re the Claim of Petrocelli

The claimant was dismissed from her bookkeeper position after threatening a co-worker, a behavior she had been reprimanded for earlier. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that her employment was terminated due to misconduct, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. It noted that continuous threatening or harassing behavior despite employer warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court also clarified that the claimant's differing account of events merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve, which it was entitled to do.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductWorkplace threatsHarassmentEmployee dischargeCredibility issueAdministrative appealAppellate DivisionUnemployment Insurance LawEmployer warnings
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,746 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