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

Flick v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The Supreme Court's order and judgment granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was unanimously affirmed. The plaintiff, an employee of Frontier Insulation/Rochester, Inc., successfully demonstrated a statutory violation and its proximate cause in his injury, supported by co-worker testimonies. The court also affirmed the summary judgment granted to Eastman Kodak, Co., Inc. against Monroe Piping & Sheet Metal, Inc., and Monroe against Frontier Insulation/Rochester, Inc., on common-law indemnification. This was based on the finding that neither Kodak nor Monroe supervised Frontier employees' work or provided safety equipment, and Kodak's periodic inspections did not establish common-law liability. Additionally, Monroe's motion for summary judgment on contractual indemnification against Frontier was affirmed, as the agreement mandated Frontier indemnify Monroe for injuries arising from Frontier’s work without Monroe’s negligence.

Labor LawStatutory ViolationProximate CauseSummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationWorkplace InjuryAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 1996

Diakakis v. Bedrick

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.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentVacatur of DefaultLaw Office FailureAffirmative DefenseAppellate AffirmationEmployer LiabilityDefault OrderExcusable Neglect
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beattie v. Ebbels

The claimant, an office manager employed since 1965, suffered a compensable injury on February 25, 1981, leading to an award for a permanent partial disability. The employer was aware of the claimant's preexisting herniated disc from 1965, but the claimant performed duties without issues. The primary legal question addressed whether the employer's knowledge of this preexisting condition at the time of hire established liability for the Special Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). The Worker’s Compensation Board determined there was insufficient knowledge, a decision which the court affirmed. Additionally, a jurisdictional issue raised by the carrier was found to be without merit, leading to an affirmation of the decision with costs awarded to the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySpecial Disability FundPreexisting ConditionEmployer KnowledgeAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionJurisdictional IssueDecision Affirmed
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1980

Claim of White v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the employer, New York City Housing Authority, and its carrier, the State Insurance Fund, from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed March 21, 1980. The Board affirmed a penalty imposed on the carrier for failing to timely reimburse the employer for wages paid to a claimant. An earlier award, affirmed by the board on April 25, 1979, directed reimbursement to the Authority. The carrier's failure to pay within 10 days of the April 1979 decision, specifically by May 25, 1979, resulted in a 20% penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (subd 3, par [c]). The court affirmed the penalty, ruling that the statute is self-executing and applies even when the payment is to an employer for wages advanced, emphasizing the legislative intent to ensure prompt compensation.

Workers' Compensation LawPenalty AssessmentLate PaymentEmployer ReimbursementInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewNew YorkWage CreditDisability Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1983

Yollin v. Holland America Cruises, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff who sued Holland America Cruises, Inc. and Holland America Cruises, N. V. on behalf of himself and other passengers for alleged fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and false advertising related to an 11-day cruise. The claims stemmed from purported lack of shopping opportunities at certain ports and an unannounced itinerary change from Bermuda to St. Maarten. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification, a decision affirmed by the appellate court on different grounds, citing a lack of merit in the claims and the impracticality of class action due to potential mini-trials. The court also modified the lower court's order by dismissing the seventh affirmative defense as moot, while otherwise affirming the original decision. The itinerary change was found to be a reasonable exercise of discretion by the defendant due to a strike in Bermuda.

Class actionCruise contractItinerary changeConsumer fraudBreach of contractNegligenceFalse advertisingNumerosity requirementContractual limitationMaritime law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1986

Montalvo v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America Local No. 3

The plaintiff, an employee of Entenmanns Bakery, sustained injuries in an automobile accident and received disability benefits from the defendant. Upon settling a third-party lawsuit related to the accident, the defendant sought to impose a lien on the settlement proceeds for the benefits paid, citing the "Bakery and Confectionery Workers Local No. 3 Welfare Fund Deed of Trust". The plaintiff initiated an action for a declaratory judgment, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law and Insurance Law provisions precluded the defendant's lien. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses. On appeal, the order was modified: the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant’s first and second affirmative defenses was granted, and the order was otherwise affirmed.

LienDisability benefitsWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance LawGeneral Associations LawSummary judgmentAffirmative defensesImproper serviceDeclaratory judgmentAppellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Medi-Tech International Corp.

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.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDistinct Legal EntitiesEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityAffirmative DefenseNew York LawJudgment Affirmation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1975

Cicalo v. City of New York

An order from the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 13, 1975, and a judgment from the same court entered on January 14, 1975, were unanimously affirmed. The decision was based on the reasons stated by Justice Fein at Special Term. The affirmation was made without costs and without disbursements. Justices Lupiano, Birns, Capozzoli, Lane, and Nunez concurred with the decision.

Appellate DecisionAffirmed JudgmentNew York Supreme CourtJudicial ConcurrenceSpecial Term
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Armstrong

The Supreme Court in Oneida County granted the defendants permission to amend their answer to include the Workers’ Compensation Law as an affirmative defense. The plaintiff appealed this decision. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the Supreme Court's ruling, noting that the plaintiff was always aware of her employment status and had already received workers’ compensation benefits. Citing precedents such as Murray v City of New York and Caceras v Zorbas, the appellate order was unanimously affirmed without costs.

Affirmative DefenseWorkers' CompensationAmended PleadingsJudicial DiscretionAppellate AffirmationEmployment LawProcedural LawPrejudice and SurpriseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSupreme Court Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffmeister v. Oaktree Homes, Inc.

This case involves an appeal where the defendant, Oaktree Homes, Inc., challenged a summary judgment granted to the plaintiff in a Labor Law § 240 (1) action. The plaintiff, employed by third-party defendant J.E.B. Contracting, was injured while removing a tarpaulin structure from foundation walls at a construction site. Oaktree Homes argued that the work area was not covered under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker. The court rejected these arguments, affirming that the structure constituted part of the workplace and that disregarding instructions alone was insufficient to establish the recalcitrant worker defense. The order of the Supreme Court, Orleans County, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff was unanimously affirmed.

Workplace safetyLabor LawSection 240(1)Recalcitrant workerSummary judgmentConstruction accidentFall from heightFoundation wallsModular homeTarpaulin structure
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 13,932 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