Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
A motion seeking an order to affirm a prior order and judgment and to vacate a previous determination and order of the court was considered and denied by the judicial panel. The panel included Justices Martin, Townley, Callahan, and Peck.
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order that granted the defendant-respondent's motion to vacate a prior default order and subsequently granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The vacatur of the default was deemed proper due to excusable law office failure by the calendar service and the evident merits of the affirmative defense, with no prejudice to the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff was barred by the exclusive remedy of the Workers' Compensation Law because he had applied for, was awarded, and accepted workers' compensation benefits from the defendant's insurance carrier, and failed to present documentary proof disproving his employment by the defendant. The decision to grant summary judgment was therefore upheld.
This memorandum decision addresses consolidated appeals arising from the bankruptcy of American Airlines and its parent corporation, AMR. The appellants, a group of current pilots nearing retirement known as the “B Pilots,” challenged three orders of the bankruptcy court. These orders authorized American to reject its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the American Pilots Association, approved a new CBA settling B Pilots’ grievances, and allowed American to amend its pension plan by eliminating lump-sum payouts. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s orders, finding that the B Pilots were not 'interested parties' under 11 U.S.C. § 1113 to object to the CBA rejection, that the rejection abrogated previous guarantees, and that the grievances related to the old CBA did not survive its rejection.
The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity. The same order had also granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment, striking that affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no basis to disregard evidence that the injured plaintiff's employer and the property owner where the injury occurred were distinct legal entities. This distinction meant the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law did not apply. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly struck the affirmative defense.
This case involves the appellate review and affirmation of two orders issued by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The first order granted summary judgment on liability to a plaintiff laborer under Labor Law § 240 (1), following an injury sustained when a scaffold toppled. The second order denied the third-party plaintiff general contractor's renewed motion for summary judgment regarding contractual and common-law indemnification against the third-party defendant subcontractor, who was the plaintiff's employer. The denial stemmed from unresolved issues of fact concerning the general contractor's supervision and control over the worksite and its authority to address safety violations. Both judicial orders were unanimously affirmed without costs.
The plaintiff Thomas Seaman appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 7, 2007. The order granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Seaman's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied his cross-motion for summary judgment on liability for Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) violations. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, ruling that the injury was not an elevation-related hazard. It also upheld the denial of Seaman's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing his failure to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order.
The case concerns an appellant declared an incapacitated person under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, leading to the appointment of both a Guardian of the Person and a Guardian of the Property. The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an initial order and judgment on September 16, 1996, followed by an order on May 22, 1997, denying the appellant's motion to vacate the prior order and judgment. The appellate court unanimously affirmed both the 1996 order and judgment and the 1997 order. The court found that the initial judgment was a proper exercise of discretion given the appellant's inability to manage daily needs and uncooperative behavior. Furthermore, it concluded that the appellant was not prejudiced by any potential non-compliance with Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 (e), especially since the guardians were subsequently discharged after a second hearing.
The order was affirmed, indicating agreement with a previous ruling. The decision included ten dollars in costs and disbursements, which are expenses associated with the legal process. No formal opinion was issued, meaning the court did not provide a detailed explanation for its decision. The judges present for this order were Finch, P. J., McAvoy, Martin, O’Malley, and Townley, JJ.
The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied its motion to vacate a judgment entered against it. The judgment was based on the defendant's default in paying an arbitration award, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 26. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the judgment was procured through fraud, misrepresentation, or other improper conduct by the plaintiff, as required by CPLR 5015 [a] [3].
The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. This motion sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting negligent supervision claims, against the Yonkers Board of Education. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order. The decision concluded that the action against the Yonkers Board of Education was appropriately barred due to the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation remedy as per Workers' Compensation Law § 11.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.