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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08926 [156 AD3d 1192]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Cromer v. Rosenzweig Insurance Agency Inc.

Plaintiff, Bradley E. Cromer, as assignee, sued Rosenzweig Insurance Agency Inc. and other defendants for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, alleging failure to procure appropriate insurance coverage for his assignors, Allen Skriloff and SOS 1031 Properties 112, LLC. The lawsuit stemmed from a workplace injury where the assignors' insurance carrier disclaimed coverage due to an employee exclusion. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the insurance agency, finding the assignors were presumed to know their policy's contents. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a specific request for the excluded coverage or establish a 'special relationship' with the broker that would impose a higher duty of advisement beyond the written notice provided.

Insurance Broker LiabilityNegligenceBreach of ContractFraudMaterial MisrepresentationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSpecial RelationshipDuty to AdviseCommercial General Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. City of New York

A New York City youth was injured in a Vermont work-study program in 1968, leading to a workers' compensation claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the City of New York, its agencies (Neighborhood Youth Corps and Youth Service Agency), and the State Insurance Fund liable, establishing an employer-employee relationship and that the injury occurred within the scope of employment. The State Insurance Fund appealed, disputing the employment relationship, policy coverage for the Youth Service Agency, whether the accident arose from employment, and New York's jurisdiction. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, citing substantial evidence supporting the employer-employee relationship due to hiring, supervision, control, and wage payment. It also found the accident arose from employment due to required residency and affirmed jurisdiction based on sufficient New York contacts.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipJurisdictionScope of EmploymentWork-Study ProgramAgency RelationshipState Insurance FundDormitory InjuryYouth ProgramNew York Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency

This memorandum-decision and order addresses defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, an African-American, alleged racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation by the Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA) and individual defendants under Title VII, NYSHRL, and §§ 1981a, 1983. The court granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing NYSHRL claims due to the election of remedies doctrine. Title VII claims against individual defendants were deemed redundant or untimely. The court found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation, or to show pretext. Hostile work environment claims were dismissed for lack of exhaustion and insufficient evidence. Conspiracy and New York Public Authorities Law claims were also dismissed, leading to the closure of the case.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Tempesta v. City of New York

A plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder while working for Confort & Company at premises owned by the New York City Industrial Development Agency. The plaintiff sued the Agency under Labor Law. The Agency initiated a third-party action against Confort for common-law contribution and indemnification. Confort, which had general liability insurance naming both itself and the Agency as insureds, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing the insurance waived the Agency's rights up to the policy limit. The Agency cross-moved to amend its complaint to assert contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court granted Confort's motion and denied the Agency's cross-motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Aetna policy covered Confort's indemnification liability, and an insurer cannot seek subrogation against its own insured for a covered risk.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law ContributionAdditional InsuredSubrogationInsurance PolicyWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06182
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Camille v. Federation of Prot. Welfare Agencies, Inc.

The plaintiff, Marvens Camille, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies, Inc.'s motions to extend time to answer and to dismiss the complaint, while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for a default judgment. Camille had sued under the Child Victims Act, alleging abuse in 2002 by a staff member of Learner's Haven, which he claimed was supervised by the Federation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the Federation provided a reasonable excuse for its delay and demonstrated a meritorious defense, conclusively establishing that the plaintiff had no cause of action against it.

Personal InjuryChild Victims ActDefault JudgmentMotion to DismissReasonable ExcuseMeritorious DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRVicarious LiabilityOrganizational Responsibility
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,840 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