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 08467 [156 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Torres v. Love Lane Mews, LLC

In this appellate case, Hilarion Torres, a construction worker, was allegedly injured by falling bricks at a construction site involving Love Lane Mews, LLC and Red Hook Construction Group-I, LLC. The Supreme Court initially denied Torres's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, dismissed Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Red Hook, and dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. It also granted Love Lane's motion for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Galaxy General Contracting Corp. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Red Hook due to unresolved factual issues regarding Red Hook's control over the injury-producing work. All other aspects of the Supreme Court's decision were affirmed.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectsLabor LawSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityAppellate Division First DepartmentBronx County Supreme CourtDemolition WorkWorkplace Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Lane

This case involves a mother's appeal against a Family Court order concerning visitation rights with her son. The Family Court had denied the mother unsupervised visitation and imposed conditions for future modification, stemming from a prior incident where the mother absconded with the son during an unsupervised visit. The appellate court affirmed the denial of unsupervised visitation, finding ample basis in the mother's past conduct and evasive testimony. However, the court deemed it improper to condition the mother's ability to seek modification on engaging in psychotherapy and a mental status evaluation. Although there was an error in admitting uncorroborated statements from the son's half-sister, this was found to be harmless given the substantial evidence supporting the supervised visitation order. The decision ultimately upholds the core finding of supervised visitation while correcting the procedural imposition of conditions.

child custodysupervised visitationparental rightsappellate reviewfamily courtmental health evaluationevidentiary errorharmless errorneglect proceedingconditions for modification
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Astrue

Plaintiff Teresa Lane sought supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability due to numerous ailments including arthritis, asthma, COPD, and fibromyalgia. The Commissioner of Social Security denied her application. This Court, presided over by District Judge Charles J. Siragusa, reviewed the final determination. The Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in applying the treating physician rule, failing to obtain evidence from a vocational expert, and evaluating Plaintiff’s credibility. Specifically, the ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff's residual functional capacity for sedentary work was inconsistent with medical opinions. Consequently, the Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Plaintiff’s cross-motion, and remanded the case solely for the calculation of benefits.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeALJ errorTreating physician ruleVocational expertCredibility assessmentSedentary workRFC assessmentNon-exertional limitations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rego v. 55 Leone Lane

The plaintiff suffered a broken ankle during employment, leading to a personal injury action against property owners 55 Leone Lane, LLC, Daniel E Doyle, Sr., and Marion Doyle. These defendants then filed a third-party claim against the employer, Brakewell Steel Fabricators, Inc., seeking common-law and contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court granted Brakewell's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a broken ankle does not constitute a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, thus precluding common-law indemnification. Additionally, a broad indemnification clause in the lease was found unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-321, as it unlawfully attempted to shift liability regardless of the defendants' own negligence, thereby denying contractual indemnification as well.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryGeneral Obligations Law § 5-321Appellate ProcedurePremises LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03114 [194 AD3d 520]
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2021

Greene v. Raynors Lane Prop. LLC

Plaintiff Marc V. Greene sustained injuries while lifting a heavy microlam on a muddy construction site, leading to a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiff partial summary judgment and defendant SDC LLC summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against third-party defendant Haddock Contracting, Inc. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court found issues of fact regarding the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that it was premature to grant SDC summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Haddock. The decision otherwise affirmed the lower court's rulings.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationElevation DifferentialConstruction AccidentWorker SafetyAbsolute LiabilityComparative NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityProperty Owner Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cappella v. Suresky at Hatfield Lane, LLC

The plaintiff, an employee of R.I. Suresky & Son, Inc. (a car dealership in Orange County), appealed an order that granted summary judgment to Suresky at Hatfield Lane, LLC, a limited liability corporation owning the dealership lot. The plaintiff sustained injuries after allegedly falling on the lot. The defendant successfully argued that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, thereby extending the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity defense. The court found sufficient evidence of managerial and financial control by R.I. Suresky & Son, Inc., over the defendant to establish a prima facie defense. As the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the original order dismissing the complaint was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity DefenseAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate DivisionOrange CountyProperty Owner LiabilityEmployer LiabilityCar Dealership
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ash v. Richard J. Lynch & Co., Inc.

Vista Lanes Limited sued Richard J. Lynch & Co., Inc. in federal court in New York for a refund and damages related to a failed contract for bowling pinsetters. Lynch had previously filed a lawsuit against Vista and Lyons Bowling Center, Inc. in New Jersey state court concerning the same underlying transaction. Lynch subsequently filed a motion in the federal court to stay the proceedings, citing convenience, the risk of piecemeal litigation, and the earlier start of the New Jersey case. The federal court, presided over by District Judge Glasser, analyzed the motion using the Colorado River abstention doctrine factors. Despite some factors leaning slightly in Lynch's favor, the court concluded that Lynch had not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" required to warrant abstention or a stay of the federal action, especially considering Vista's willingness to arbitrate its federal claim. Consequently, Lynch's motion to stay the proceedings was denied.

Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel LitigationStay of ProceedingsFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionPiecemeal LitigationContract DisputeBowling PinsettersInter-jurisdictional Conflict
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miraglia v. H&L Holding Corp.

This opinion addresses post-judgment motions in a personal injury case arising from an accident where the plaintiff, an employee of Lane & Sons Construction Corp., was injured at a site owned by H&L Holding Corporation. Following a jury verdict and appellate modification, Lane moved to amend the May 4, 2005 judgment to provide for entry of judgment solely against H&L, arguing that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 prevented direct recovery against Lane by the plaintiff. Plaintiff cross-moved for an order of attachment or a constructive trust on proceeds paid to H&L by its insurer. H&L cross-moved to amend the judgment to reflect its right to judgment over against Lane for the full amount and for defense costs, based on contractual and common-law indemnification, given Lane had agreed to indemnify H&L and assumed its defense at trial. The court denied Lane's motion, ruling that amending the judgment would affect a substantial right of the plaintiff and go beyond ministerial correction permitted by CPLR 5019 (a). Plaintiff's cross-motion was also denied. H&L's cross-motion for reimbursement of costs and attorneys' fees from Lane was granted, and a hearing was scheduled to determine the amount.

Workers' Compensation LawLabor LawCPLR 5019(a)IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationPost-Judgment MotionsAmendment of JudgmentNondelegable DutyOwner Liability
References
19
Case No. ADJ1994269 (LBO 0278150)
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

RAYMOND LANE vs. CAMPBELL HALL SCHOOL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns applicant Raymond Lane's permanent disability rating following a myocardial infarction and subsequent psychiatric injury. The Board granted reconsideration, modifying the previous award to reflect a 93.5% permanent disability rating. This adjustment was based on the Board's finding that while cardiac permanent disability is apportionable, psychiatric permanent disability is not to be apportioned to non-industrial factors, aligning with expert medical opinions and statutory requirements. The applicant is awarded a specific weekly payment for a set period, followed by a life pension, with provisions for attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Sections 4663Labor Code Sections 4664Myocardial InfarctionPsychiatric InjuryAgreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs)
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 08220 [192 AD3d 859]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2021

Cruz v. 1142 Bedford Ave., LLC

The case involves Maximo Cruz, who sustained left hand injuries while operating a table saw at a Brooklyn construction site. He sued 1142 Bedford Avenue, LLC, J. Vasquez Meat Corp., and 2 Big Meadow Lane, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law and Industrial Code provisions related to workplace safety. The Appellate Division modified a Supreme Court order, denying 2 Big Meadow's motion for summary judgment by finding triable issues regarding its 'owner' status under Labor Law § 241 (6). Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on liability against 1142 Bedford Avenue, LLC, and J. Vasquez Meat Corp., concluding that the malfunctioning table saw without proper safety features was the proximate cause of the injuries. This decision reaffirms the nondelegable duty of owners and contractors to ensure a safe work environment and comply with specific safety regulations.

Construction accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law Section 241(6)Industrial CodeSummary judgment motionOwner liabilityProximate causeTable sawWorkplace safetyAppellate Division
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 64 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