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

Malecki v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Paul E. Malecki, an ironworker, was injured when a 2,000-pound bundle of steel fell onto his foot. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200 (1), and common-law negligence against The Pike Company, Inc., the general contractor, and other defendants. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, but denied dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action. The court also denied conditional summary judgment on Pike’s common-law indemnification claim against Niagara Erecting but properly denied conditional summary judgment on Pike's contractual indemnification claim. The appeals court modified the order, affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and further ruled that the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action should also be dismissed, and conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Niagara Erecting should have been granted to Pike. The order was modified accordingly and affirmed.

Ironworker InjuryForklift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation RisksCommon-Law NegligenceIndemnification ClaimGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1971

Maurizio v. Hoberman

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 26, 1971, concerning the rating examination papers of civil service workers. The initial judgment confirmed a Special Referee's report but was subsequently modified. The modification involved remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, with the judgment then affirmed as modified. The court underscored that the duty to establish requirements for promotional examinations lies solely with the respondents, and judicial interference is unwarranted if exercised fairly. Although the respondents did not participate in the appeal, implying agreement with the Special Term's views, the courts reaffirmed their inability to assume the respondents' powers or duties.

Civil ServicePromotional ExaminationExamination PapersJudicial ReviewRemandSupreme CourtReferee ReportAdministrative DiscretionJudicial RestraintNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 1999

Hardy v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiff, a 58-year-old engineer, was discharged from defendant's Corporate Research and Development Center in Schenectady County in August 1993. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under New York's Human Rights Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, along with contract claims. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant on the contract claims but denied it for the age discrimination claim. On appeal, the order was modified, and the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the age discrimination cause of action was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The appellate court found that the defendant successfully demonstrated legitimate economic reasons for the workforce reduction and the plaintiff's termination, and the plaintiff failed to establish that these reasons were a pretext for age discrimination, despite presenting arguments regarding alleged age-related statements and statistical evidence.

age discriminationemployment lawsummary judgmentHuman Rights LawADEAworkforce reductioneconomic justificationpretextappellate reviewemployer-employee dispute
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stratton v. DEPARTMENT FOR AGING CITY OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff Joyce Stratton sued the New York City Department for the Aging (DFTA) and Commissioner Prema Mathai-Davis for age discrimination and retaliation after her termination at age 61 and failure to be rehired. A jury found for Stratton, awarding $500,000 in damages, determining age was a factor and the non-rehire was retaliatory and willful. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous admission of statistical evidence, and excessive damages. Plaintiff cross-moved for front pay and restoration of benefits. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial regarding statistical evidence. The motion for a new trial due to excessive damages was denied on condition that plaintiff accept a remittitur reducing the award from $500,000 to $373,886.23. Plaintiff's motion for front pay and benefits, totaling $378,000, was granted.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawJury VerdictPost-trial MotionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialRemittiturFront PayBack Pay
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gielow v. Rosa Coplon Home

Plaintiff, a carpenter, was injured after slipping in an excavation while checking wooden forms at a construction site. Plaintiff sued under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendants Kamdar and Coplon, and third-party defendant Ciminelli, moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but retained others. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court found Labor Law § 240 (1) was properly dismissed, and further ruled that Labor Law § 241 (6), common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 200 claims should have been dismissed against Kamdar and Coplon due to lack of supervisory control. Plaintiff's cross-motion to add Menorah Campus as a defendant was denied due to the Statute of Limitations.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityThird-Party ActionRelation Back DoctrineStatute of LimitationsNegligence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2013

McGuinness v. Concentric Health Care LLC

This case involves an appeal stemming from a motion for summary judgment in an age discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The plaintiff, a 49-year-old billing manager for Concentric Health Care LLC, alleged discriminatory termination. Defendants cited financial difficulties and poor performance as reasons for her dismissal. However, the court identified factual disputes regarding whether these explanations were pretexts, noting a significant delay in termination following financial recommendations, new hires, and raises for other employees, as well as evidence of manipulated performance reviews. Additionally, questions of fact arose concerning the retaliation claim, as the plaintiff's complaint about age-related scrutiny was perceived by HR as an age discrimination complaint. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order was modified to deny the dismissal of the retaliation claim, and the denial to dismiss the age-based discrimination claim was affirmed, allowing both claims to proceed.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextual ExplanationHuman ResourcesPerformance ReviewConcentric Health Care LLCNew York City Human Rights LawAppellate Division
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Collum Acoustical Co. v. Local 46 Sheet Metal Workers Union

The court unanimously modified the judgment, reversing the prior award against Local 46 Sheet Metal Workers Union AFL-CIO and dismissing the complaint as it pertains to this defendant. The record was found to lack the necessary standards of proof for an award against the union. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed, with no costs awarded to any party on appeal.

Libel ActionJudgment ModificationAward ReversalInsufficient EvidenceUnion LiabilityAppellate ReviewComplaint Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cameron v. Cameron

The court upheld the amount of maintenance awarded to the plaintiff, finding it balanced the plaintiff's needs and the defendant's ability to pay. It also determined that the plaintiff's receipt of Social Security benefits or disability payments would not automatically terminate maintenance, allowing for future modification if circumstances change. The defendant was granted a credit of $9,666.72 for an unauthorized withdrawal made by the plaintiff from a joint line of credit. The court affirmed the award of counsel fees to the plaintiff, noting the defendant had stipulated to a written submission for the application and did not request a hearing. The judgment was modified to include the credit for the defendant.

maintenancespousal supportequitable distributionjoint line of creditcreditcounsel feesattorney's feesmarital residenceSocial Security benefitsdisability payments
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riedel v. Steger Material Handling Co.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding evidence that J.G.M. Installation & Service, Inc. created the accident condition and Steger Material Handling Co., Inc. was responsible for its subcontractor's negligence. The court also correctly denied the plaintiff's motion to pierce Steger Material's corporate veil and add Richard Steger as a defendant, asserting that insufficient corporate assets do not justify disregarding the corporate form. However, the court erred by granting the plaintiff's motion for additional causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), as the plaintiff was not a protected worker under these statutes. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order by denying that portion of the plaintiff's motion, while the plaintiff's remaining contention was not preserved for review.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseCorporate VeilLabor LawSubcontractor NegligenceAppellate ReviewMotion to Amend ComplaintProtected WorkersVicarious LiabilityErie County Supreme Court
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,840 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