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

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1997

George M. Taylor & Son, Inc. v. Hudson Valley Staff Leasing Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, concerning a breach of contract action against Hudson Valley Staff Leasing Corp. (HVSL). The plaintiff claimed HVSL overcharged by not reducing fees when Federal Unemployment Insurance Tax (FUTA) and State Unemployment Insurance Tax (SUTA) were no longer payable on employee wages exceeding $7,000, arguing this constituted a 'statutory decrease'. HVSL contended it charged a flat rate and that such an event was not a statutory decrease. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross-motions, ruling that the cessation of FUTA and SUTA payments was indeed a 'statutory decrease' requiring a fee reduction. The matter was remitted for a hearing to determine damages.

breach of contractemployee leasing agreementFUTASUTAunemployment insurance taxstatutory decreasesummary judgmentappellate reviewoverchargefee reduction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1985

Linares v. Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Time Moving and Storage (employer) and Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp. (vehicle lessor), in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the plaintiff's exclusive remedy against both the employer and the vehicle owner, as the injury occurred while the plaintiff was a passenger in an employer-leased vehicle driven by a co-employee. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint and bill of particulars, citing the significant delay (nearly four years after inception of the lawsuit) and completion of all discovery.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyCo-employee NegligenceLeased Vehicle LiabilityAppellate AffirmationMotion to Amend PleadingsBill of ParticularsDelay in Litigation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. Salem Truck Leasing, Inc.

The defendants, Salem Truck Leasing, Inc., and Jose E. Cofresi, appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff was a passenger in a truck operated by Cofresi and owned by Salem, and both were co-employees involved in an accident during their employment. The appeals court modified the order, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Cofresi, citing Workers' Compensation Law co-employee immunity. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Salem Truck Leasing, Inc., as a triable issue of fact existed regarding Salem's alleged independent negligence in maintaining the truck.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee ImmunityVehicle AccidentTruck LeasingNegligenceAppellate ReviewMotion PracticeKings County
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rose v. Mendon Leasing Co.

Plaintiffs Sylvan D. Rose and Orville Sterling, two African-American males, sued their former employer, Mendon Leasing Co., for racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following their termination for allegedly stealing gasoline. Mendon moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination backed by video surveillance. The plaintiffs claimed disparate treatment and pretext, asserting that Caucasian employees engaged in similar conduct without discipline, and alleged tampering with video evidence. The Court found that Mendon met its burden by showing a legitimate reason for termination, and plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination or to rebut Mendon's evidence. Consequently, the Court granted Mendon's motion for summary judgment on the federal claims and dismissed the entire complaint, declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Disparate TreatmentPretextFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Wrongful Termination
References
15
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05522
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2017

Hastedt v. Bovis Lend Lease Holdings, Inc.

This case involves an appeal regarding a worker's death from a fall at a construction site, leading to a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified a lower court's order. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the exact cause and circumstances of the fall from a ladder or scaffold were unclear, raising triable issues of fact. Additionally, the court ruled on contractual indemnification claims, finding Bovis Lend Lease Holdings, Inc. was not an agent of Camden Central School District for Labor Law purposes and was entitled to contractual indemnification from George A. Nole & Son, Inc., while Camden and Nole were entitled to indemnification from K.C. Masonry, Inc.

Ladder FallScaffold AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationAgencyConstruction Site AccidentWrongful DeathVicarious Liability
References
19
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06004 [164 AD3d 1222]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2018

Johnson v. Lend Lease Constr. LMB, Inc.

The plaintiff, James Johnson, commenced an action against Lend Lease Construction LMB, Inc., and Columbia University in the City of New York, seeking damages for personal injuries under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. Johnson alleged injuries sustained from a fall on a rebar grid at a construction project. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law for all causes of action and that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court specifically noted that the rebar grid openings did not present an elevation-related hazard under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the cited provisions of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 were inapplicable.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawAppellate ReviewRebar GridElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law NegligenceStatutory ViolationSafety Regulations
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thai Airways International Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V.

Plaintiff Thai Airways International, Ltd. sued defendants United Aviation Leasing B.V. and others under the civil provisions of RICO and state law, alleging unlawful conversion of security deposits and wire fraud. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, defendants moved again for dismissal. The court found that while the wire fraud claim was particularized, the conversion claim against other unnamed lessees failed to meet pleading requirements. Furthermore, the eligible predicate acts were deemed insufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for a viable RICO claim. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without leave to replead, as the court lacked federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

RICO ActWire FraudCivil ProcedureRule 9(b)RacketeeringContinuity RequirementConversion of FundsSecurity DepositsAirplane LeaseJurisdiction Dismissal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrington v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc.

Plaintiff Gerard Farrington sustained personal injuries while unloading wooden planks from a flatbed truck at a construction site managed by Bovis Lend Lease LMB, Inc. and owned by Columbia University. The planks, supplied and loaded by Feldman Lumber, fell and struck him. Farrington filed a lawsuit alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6), as well as Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388(1). The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment by both the Bovis and Feldman defendants. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that material issues of fact existed regarding the applicability of Labor Law § 240(1) and common-law negligence claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction SafetyFalling MaterialsSummary Judgment MotionLabor Law Section 240(1)Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 388(1)Common-Law NegligenceAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityDuty of Care
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 536 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