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. 2022 NY Slip Op 02757
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. State of New York

This case involves Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., as an assignee, appealing orders that denied its motion for summary judgment in a breach of contract claim against the New York State Insurance Fund (SIF). Home Depot sought coverage under an Employer's Liability Policy issued by SIF to Bryan's Home Improvement Corporation, covering damages for employee injuries where recovery is permitted by law, specifically for

Breach of ContractEmployer's Liability PolicyCollateral EstoppelGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAssignee Rights
References
4
Case No. No. 95 Civ. 5338 (JGK)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

Petition of Home Ins. Co.

The Home Insurance Company (Home) filed a petition to compel arbitration against Svedala Industries Inc. (Svedala) under the Federal Arbitration Act concerning disputed retrospective premiums. Svedala cross-moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute arose under an insurance policy without an arbitration clause and that Home had previously invoked federal jurisdiction in a Wisconsin action. The court clarified that only the Southern District of New York could compel arbitration, as specified in the agreement. The court granted Home's petition, concluding that the broad arbitration clause in the Retrospective Premium Agreement covered the dispute, and denied Svedala's cross-motion, thereby ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActRetrospective Premium AgreementWorkers Compensation PolicyMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsFirst-Filed RuleContract InterpretationScope of Arbitration ClauseBad Faith Claim
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond v. Reilly Homes Construction Corp.

Plaintiffs Dale A. Diamond and James Panek sustained injuries at a construction site in East Fishkill while assembling a modular home. The accident occurred when a suspended roof section, being hoisted to allow for 'knee wall' installation, fell on them due to bracket failure. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants Reilly Homes Construction Corporation, Chelsea Homes, Inc., and Royal Crane, Inc. The Supreme Court initially denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes, while also granting summary judgment to Royal Crane. The appellate court modified the orders, reversing the denials against Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes and granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, but affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Royal Crane.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site AccidentFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHoist ApparatusElevation DifferentialWorker SafetyContractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2001

Vanderwerff v. Home

This case concerns an appeal by a plaintiff and defendant Otis Elevator, Inc., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The order granted summary judgment to Victoria Home, dismissing the plaintiff's personal injury complaint against it, and also granted judgment dismissing Otis Elevator's cross claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, holding that the plaintiff, having received Workers’ Compensation benefits from her general employer, was a special employee of Victoria Home. Consequently, the plaintiff's action against Victoria Home was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court found that Victoria Home exclusively controlled the manner and details of the plaintiff's work while she was employed there, thus establishing a special employment relationship.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceTort LawNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mafia v. Creekview Homes Ltd.

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, which had granted summary judgment to the defendant Creekview Homes, Ltd., and dismissed the complaint against all defendants in a personal injury action. The appellate court found that Creekview Homes, Ltd. failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Affidavits submitted by Creekview Homes regarding the injured plaintiff's workers' compensation claim did not definitively rule out the accident occurring on their property. A triable issue of fact exists concerning the accident location. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and denied Creekview Homes' motion for summary judgment.

personal injurysummary judgmentappealDutchess Countypremises liabilityworkers' compensation claimprima facie showingtriable issue of factaccident locationappellate court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the general contractor, commenced an action against its subcontractor's insurer, National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, seeking a declaration of coverage. Home Depot, individually and as assignee of Westward Contracting, Inc., sought to compel National Fire to defend and indemnify it as an an additional insured in an underlying action, and to indemnify Westward. The Supreme Court denied Home Depot's discovery motion, granted National Fire summary judgment declaring Home Depot was not an additional insured, and denied National Fire's motion to dismiss Home Depot's claims as Westward's assignee for lack of standing and for summary judgment on the indemnification obligation to Westward. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding Home Depot was not an additional insured and that the assignment to Home Depot was valid and did not relieve National Fire of its indemnification obligation to Westward.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredIndemnificationSummary JudgmentStandingAssignment of ClaimsSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorCommercial General Liability PolicyAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Harmon Funeral Home, Inc.

Judge Mikoll dissents from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an employer-employee relationship between Harmon Funeral Home, Inc. and its pallbearers. The dissent argues that there is not substantial evidence to support this conclusion, citing a lack of control and direction by the funeral home over the pallbearers. Pallbearers are sourced from a livery service, not instructed by the funeral home, and receive no employee benefits. Although a union agreement designated pallbearers as employees, the dissent states this factor alone should not be determinative given the overall circumstances indicating an independent contractor relationship. The dissent concludes that the Board's decision should be reversed.

Employer-employee relationshipPallbearersIndependent contractorWorkers' compensationUnion agreementControl and directionLivery serviceDissentFuneral homeLabor law
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04576 [241 AD3d 563]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust v. American Home Assur. Co.

The New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust (NYBOCT), a self-insured entity, brought an action against its excess-of-loss insurer, American Home Assurance Co., alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory relief. This dispute arose after American Home denied coverage for a workers' compensation claim due to untimely notice. The Supreme Court granted American Home's motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, which NYBOCT appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract began when American Home disclaimed coverage on May 18, 2012, making NYBOCT's 2020 lawsuit untimely. The court rejected arguments related to the continuing-wrong doctrine and estoppel.

Limitation of ActionsBreach of ContractInsurance ContractDisclaimer of CoverageStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationExcess-of-Loss PolicySelf-Insured TrustUntimely NoticeAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Enriquez v. Home Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc.

The claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an injury from falling off a ladder while working for Home Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined an employer-employee relationship existed and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings and found Home Lawn Care had violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) due to an untimely notice of controversy. Home Lawn Care appealed. The appellate court agreed that the Board erred in finding a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) but upheld the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship and that the injury arose from employment, thus modifying and affirming the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryNotice of ControversySubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewLadder FallGutter Cleaning
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,872 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