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
Dec 21, 2000

Clarke v. One Source Facility Services, Inc.

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North American Thought Combine, Inc. v. Kelly

Petitioner North American Thought Combine, Inc. (Thought) sought to confirm an arbitration award against Respondent Kathleen Kelly (Kelly) concerning a contract for exclusive representation of Kelly's artwork. The arbitrator had determined Thought had a continuing right to represent specific licensed properties and receive compensation, but the agreement for all works had expired. Kelly opposed the confirmation, arguing the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as the amount in controversy did not meet the statutory requirement for diversity jurisdiction. The court agreed with Kelly, ruling that the value of the arbitration award itself, not the underlying arbitration claim, determines the amount in controversy for confirmation petitions. As Thought failed to provide competent proof that the value of its continuing rights exceeded $75,000, the court dismissed the petition for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Arbitration ConfirmationSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyFederal Arbitration ActContract DisputeExclusive AgencyArtwork LicensingFederal Court DismissalSecond Circuit Precedent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Normile v. Allstate Insurance

Chief Judge Cooke's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's interpretation of Insurance Law section 671 (subd 2, par [b]) regarding how collateral source payments affect an insurer's aggregate $50,000 liability for basic economic loss. The dissent argues that the majority's method, which allows insurers to reduce their total liability by these payments, leads to an incomplete recovery for injured parties, particularly when total losses exceed $50,000. Cooke proposes an alternative allocation where collateral source payments are first applied to cover losses beyond the $50,000 basic economic loss threshold. This approach, he contends, ensures that insurers pay the full $50,000 in first-party benefits and only take credit for collateral sources that would otherwise result in a double recovery within the basic economic loss limit, or for amounts exceeding the $50,000 threshold. The dissenting judge asserts that the Legislature did not intend to create such an inequity, where injured individuals are left with less than full compensation while insurers avoid their primary obligation.

Insurance Law InterpretationBasic Economic LossCollateral Source PaymentsNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security Disability BenefitsDissenting OpinionAggregate LiabilityFirst-Party BenefitsDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anastasia v. Barnes

This case involves a wrongful death action where the defendant, New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA), and third-party defendant, Pinkerton’s New York Racing Security Service, Inc., moved to amend their answers. They sought to assert a setoff for pension and insurance benefits received by the plaintiff due to the decedent's death, invoking the "collateral source rule." The court, presided over by Justice Kenneth H. Lange, denied both motions. The decision delves into the nuances of the collateral source rule, distinguishing between gratuitous benefits and those part of employment compensation. It concludes that NYRA, not having contributed to the benefits, cannot assert them as a setoff, and Pinkerton’s, despite funding some benefits, cannot use them against an indemnification claim, prioritizing the tort-feasor's responsibility for compensation.

Wrongful DeathCollateral Source RuleSetoff DefenseLeave to Amend AnswerThird-Party LitigationIndemnification ClaimWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPension BenefitsInsurance BenefitsTort Law
References
20
Case No. 154970/19 | Appeal No. 5599 | Case No. 2024-06451
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Russell v. Lenox Hill Hosp.

Plaintiff James Russell, an employee of a delivery service, sustained injuries while unloading a blood irradiator machine at Lenox Hill Hospital, falling off a truck after the machine rolled towards him. The Supreme Court had denied Lenox Hill Hospital's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200 claims and common-law negligence, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, and denied Rad Source Technologies' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed these decisions, dismissing both the complaint against Lenox Hill Hospital and the third-party complaint. The court ruled that plaintiff was not a covered worker under Labor Law § 240(1) as the electrical work was unrelated to his activity and completed before delivery. Furthermore, Lenox Hill Hospital did not supervise or control plaintiff's work, negating Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence liability. The third-party complaint was also dismissed, as Rad Source cannot be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, and delivery work is not considered inherently dangerous.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentIndependent ContractorDelivery ServicesPremises LiabilityLoading Dock InjuryUnloading Equipment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wali v. One Source Co.

Plaintiff Abdul Karim Wali sued his former employer, One-Source, Inc., and two human resources employees, Gi Corderzo and Terry Vidal, alleging termination based on race, color, and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Wali was a temporary employee terminated at the conclusion of his assignment, not due to discrimination. The court found Wali failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, lacking evidence that similarly situated non-protected employees were treated more favorably. Furthermore, even if a prima facie case was established, Wali failed to show that the defendants' legitimate non-discriminatory reason (temporary employment) was a pretext for discrimination. The claim of religious discrimination was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and individual claims against Cordero and Vidal were dismissed as Title VII does not provide for individual liability. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Wali's claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationColor DiscriminationReligious Discrimination Claim DismissedPro Se LitigationDisparate TreatmentPretextual ReasonExhaustion of Remedies
References
76
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06477 [175 AD3d 1253]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2019

Graziano v. Source Bldrs. & Consultants, LLC

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury case where Guy Graziano was injured on a construction site. The court modified an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, concerning claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Specifically, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence against the defendants, finding triable issues of fact regarding dangerous conditions and the manner of work. However, it affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims due to the inapplicability of cited Industrial Code provisions. The court also adjusted rulings on contractual indemnification claims between the defendants.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationScaffold LawElevation-Related RiskUnsafe Workplace
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffmann v. S.J. Hawk, Inc.

In an action seeking damages for personal injuries, the defendants initiated an appeal against two orders issued by the Supreme Court, Queens County. The first order, dated June 11, 1998, denied their motion for discovery related to earnings, no-fault benefits, and Workers’ Compensation benefits. The second order, dated September 14, 1998, rejected their request for the plaintiffs to provide authorization for obtaining Social Security Disability records. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in limiting collateral source discovery. The ruling referenced City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co. as a general precedent.

DiscoveryCollateral Source RulePersonal Injury DamagesNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAppellate ProcedureEvidence RulesJudicial DiscretionCivil Procedure
References
2
Case No. ADJ3566620 (SBR 0331934) ADJ3758235 (SBR 0336076)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

MELANIE MEDBERY vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Payless Shoe Source's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to her right knee and lower extremity. Crucially, they affirmed the administrative law judge's determination that Payless violated Labor Code section 132a by unlawfully terminating the applicant. The employer's stated reason for termination, a violation of the attendance policy, was deemed pretextual and not supported by the evidence or the company's own handbook.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight Knee InjuryRight Lower Extremity InjuryLabor Code Section 132aViolationDiscriminationDifferential Treatment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKnight v. New York City Transit Authority

The plaintiff, previously injured in a work-related accident, sustained further personal injuries in a bus accident in 2010 and subsequently sued. A jury awarded her damages, including for past medical expenses, and past and future lost earnings. The defendants sought a collateral source setoff, arguing that the plaintiff's Workers' Compensation and Social Security disability benefits from her prior injury should reduce the award. While the Supreme Court initially denied this motion, the appellate court modified the judgment. The court reduced the awards for past and future lost earnings based on established Workers' Compensation benefits but denied a setoff for Social Security benefits and medical bills due to the defendants' failure to provide sufficient proof. As a result, the judgment was modified to reflect adjusted damages for lost earnings.

Personal InjuryDamagesLost EarningsMedical ExpensesCollateral Source RuleWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationEvidence Standards
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 425 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