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. 2018 NY Slip Op 00246 [157 AD3d 528]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2018

Casalini v. Alexander Wolf & Son

Plaintiff Michael Casalini was allegedly injured at work on a renovation site when he slipped and fell on a pile of debris. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' in limine motion and dismissed the complaint, citing a prior order that found no negligence by defendant Alexander Wolf & Son regarding the debris. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the motion in limine was effectively an untimely motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212(a) and also premature under CPLR 4401 as plaintiffs were denied an evidentiary hearing. Consequently, the appellate court denied the motion, and the complaint was reinstated in its entirety.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSlip and FallPremises LiabilityLabor LawSummary JudgmentMotion in LimineAppellate ProcedureIndemnificationThird-Party Claim
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02574
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2019

Roserie v. Alexander's Kings Plaza, LLC

Sophia Roserie sued Alexander's Kings Plaza, LLC and Schindler Elevator Corp. for personal injuries sustained in an elevator accident. Schindler Elevator Corp. moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied dismissal of the complaint against Schindler Elevator but granted dismissal of Roserie's claim for damages related to an exacerbation of her Chiari malformation, based on a Workers' Compensation Board finding. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed both aspects of the Supreme Court's order. It found that Schindler Elevator failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment dismissing the complaint and that the Workers' Compensation Board's prior determination regarding the Chiari malformation had collateral estoppel effect.

Elevator AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BoardChiari MalformationNegligenceAppellate ReviewElevator MaintenancePrima Facie Burden
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of New York landowners, filed a declaratory judgment action against Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC and Statoilhydro USA Onshore Properties, Inc. They sought a declaration that their oil and gas leases had expired, alleging issues such as primary lease term expiration, failure of consideration, non-payment, and violations of New York General Business Law. Defendants moved to compel arbitration and to stay the claims of three plaintiffs not subject to arbitration. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration for the majority of plaintiffs, determining that the Federal Arbitration Act applied due to the leases involving interstate commerce, and that the broad arbitration clauses covered disputes regarding lease duration. A discretionary stay was also granted for the Hidock plaintiffs' claims to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent results, subject to specific time limits for arbitration initiation and completion.

Declaratory JudgmentOil and Gas LeasesArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActInterstate CommerceContract LawLease DisputeMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsNew York General Business Law
References
20
Case No. 87 Civ. 3710 (JMC)
Regular Panel Decision

Seedman v. Alexander's, Inc.

Albert A. Seedman sued Alexander's, Inc., Roger A. Barrer, and Robert Geber under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after being forced to resign at age 67. Seedman alleged his EEOC complaint was filed late due to fear of economic retaliation (losing indemnification in a separate lawsuit and consulting fees) and lack of awareness of ADEA filing deadlines. The court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding equitable tolling or estoppel, stating that Alexander's conduct did not cause the delay. The court also dismissed claims against individual defendants Barrer and Geber because they were not named in the EEOC charge and there was no evidence they received actual notice of investigation into their individual conduct. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentEquitable TollingEquitable EstoppelEEOCFederal Civil ProcedureStatute of LimitationsResignationRetaliation
References
20
Case No. ADJ1883473
Regular
Dec 14, 2018

JOSE MANUEL SALDIVAR vs. REUEL SARABIA CIPRIANO, dba GENESIS GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR, INC., ALEXANDER LEIGH, DAVID LEIGH, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior findings and substituted new ones, determining Alexander Leigh was the employer of Jose Manuel Saldivar. The Board found that the unlicensed and uninsured contractor, Reuel Sarabia Cipriano, was acting as an employee of the property owner, Alexander Leigh, as a matter of law, due to Cipriano's failure to maintain a valid contractor's license and workers' compensation insurance. The WCAB specifically rejected the argument that Cipriano's alleged misrepresentations to the property owner estopped the injured worker or the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) from establishing Leigh as the employer. Therefore, the WCAB ordered that Leigh, as the ultimate hirer, was legally responsible for Saldivar's industrial injury.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fundillegally uninsuredunlicensed contractorultimate hireremployee statusindependent contractorestoppeldue processcross-examinationDeclaration of David Leigh
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander v. Hart

Plaintiff Roger Alexander, a service technician, fell while repairing an HVAC unit at a fitness center on the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation in Franklin County, owned by Fabian M. Hart and Fabian M. Hart, Inc. He and his wife sued for violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court found that New York civil laws apply and that Fabian M. Hart and Fabian M. Hart, Inc. were 'owners' under Labor Law § 240 (1), affirming liability under that section for them. However, it reversed the lower court regarding Gail Hart, dismissing the complaint against her, and also dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action against all defendants, deeming the activity not covered by that statute. The court further ruled that the defendants' Labor Law violations were the proximate cause of the accident, overriding any claims of plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Labor LawHVAC RepairIndian Reservation JurisdictionWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentProperty Owners LiabilityContributory NegligencePremises LiabilityNew York State Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bressler

Carbon Investment Partners LLC and Carbon Master Fund LP moved to extend deadlines to object to debtor Lee Alexander Bressler's discharge under sections 523(c) and 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. Carbon argued that the 60-day deadline should run from the date the creditors' meeting actually took place, not the first scheduled date, and claimed an oral agreement with Bressler's counsel for an extension. The court, citing unambiguous language in Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007 and their 1999 amendments, ruled that the deadline is calculated from the *first date set* for the 341 Meeting, making Carbon's motion untimely. The court also rejected Carbon's equitable arguments, emphasizing that only the court can grant extensions and reliance on an unapproved oral agreement was unreasonable. While acknowledging Bressler's alleged misconduct, the court found the circumstances not 'extraordinary' enough for equitable tolling. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing for potential future objections under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b)(2) if new facts emerge.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Discharge ObjectionsBankruptcy RulesDeadline ExtensionEquitable TollingEquitable EstoppelCreditors' MeetingUntimely MotionFraudulent Conduct
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

German v. Pena

Plaintiff Alexander German, a Russian native, sued Frederico Pena, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII. German claimed unequal employment terms, failure to promote, and prevention from competing for a promotion at the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML). The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing German failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court found that German did not contact an EEO counselor within the required 45 days of the alleged discrimination, despite EML providing notice of these procedures. The court rejected regulatory and equitable exceptions, finding German's subjective ignorance of the EEO poster's content incredible and insufficient. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the action with prejudice.

National Origin DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActAdministrative ExhaustionEEO CounselingSummary JudgmentFederal EmployeesTimeliness RequirementEquitable TollingEquitable EstoppelPro Se Litigant
References
23
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04102
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2021

Matter of Jason Alexander B. (Brenda S.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court's order finding respondent-appellant Antonio G. abused and neglected Jason and Damira, and derivatively abused and neglected Jayrell and Phillip. The court found that Damira's detailed out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by expert testimony of a licensed clinical social worker, who stated the child suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder related to sexual abuse. Respondent's argument that he was not legally responsible for the two eldest children was unpreserved and unavailing, given his frequent presence in the home and relationship to the children. His actions demonstrated impaired parental judgment, placing the children at substantial risk of harm.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily Court ActCorroboration of TestimonyExpert TestimonyPosttraumatic Stress DisorderParental JudgmentLegal ResponsibilityAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ2704105
Regular
Aug 02, 2013

RACHEL ALEXANDER vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's dismissal of Rachel Alexander's workers' compensation case, which occurred before a merits adjudication due to her death. The Board held that the deceased applicant's death does not prevent the determination of accrued benefits for dependents or heirs under Labor Code section 4700. Dismissal without an evidentiary hearing violated due process, as workers' compensation proceedings do not allow for summary judgment motions. The case was returned for further proceedings and a decision on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationDismissalDue ProcessLabor Code section 3202Labor Code section 4700Accrued and unpaid benefitsInjury to respiratory systemInjury to internal systemsHeadaches
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 79 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