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
Jul 05, 1995

Granieri v. 500 Fifth Avenue Associates

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). The court denied defendant 500 Fifth Avenue Associates' cross-motion to amend their answer to include Workers' Compensation as an exclusive remedy and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The denial was based on evidence that control and supervision over the plaintiff was exercised by Newmark Real Estate, Inc., the defendant's managing agent, refuting the claim that the plaintiff was a special employee of the defendant. The court also affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on the owner for injuries due to a failure to provide proper equipment, and the plaintiff's possible culpable conduct regarding ladder placement would not defeat the claim. Additionally, the court found no error in refusing to reinstate the third affirmative defense given the two-year delay in serving the verification of the bill of particulars.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilitySpecial EmployeePremises LiabilityAffirmative DefenseCulpable ConductLadder AccidentAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caldarola v. DeCiuceis

Plaintiff, Rocco Caldarola, a corrections officer, initiated an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Westchester County Department of Correction and individuals, alleging malicious prosecution and false arrest. The claims stemmed from an investigation into Caldarola's eligibility for job injury benefits, which led to his arrest for violating the Public Officers Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing probable cause. The court denied summary judgment on the false arrest claim, citing disputed facts regarding the reliability of the private investigator's report in establishing probable cause. However, summary judgment was granted for the malicious prosecution claim due to the plaintiff's failure to present evidence of malice. The court also partially granted plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, allowing the addition of Louis D’Aliso as a defendant and the dismissal of William DeCiuceis, but denied the inclusion of a state malicious prosecution claim and a 'liberty deprivation' claim against Andrew Spano.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSummary Judgment MotionProbable CauseCorrections Officer Misconduct42 U.S.C. § 1983Fourth Amendment RightsPublic Officers Law ViolationsResidency Fraud InvestigationLeave to Amend Complaint
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2002

Hynes v. Start Elevator, Inc.

A former employee and his wife sued Start Elevator after the employee was injured in an elevator accident. Start Elevator then filed third-party complaints against 410-57th Corp., the building owner and employer, and Carmela Maresca, the managing agent. The third-party defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the workers' compensation settlement barred the third-party actions and that Maresca was a coemployee. Start Elevator cross-moved to amend its complaint for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment and granted leave to amend. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants, dismissing the third-party complaints, and denying Start Elevator's cross-motion for leave to amend, finding no grave injury and insufficient basis for contractual indemnification.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ActionsContractual IndemnificationElevator AccidentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCoemployee ImmunityGrave Injury ExceptionLeave to Amend PleadingsRes Judicata / Estoppel
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ILGWU National Retirement Fund v. B.B. Liquidating Corp.

The ILGWU National Retirement Fund moved to amend its complaint and for summary judgment, while B.B. Liquidating Corp. cross-moved for summary judgment. The Fund alleges BBLC, operating as Blassport, contributed to the Fund, then sold assets, incurring withdrawal liability when the purchaser ceased contributions. BBLC denies ever contributing to the Fund and thus denies liability. The court granted the motion to amend the complaint, allowing the Fund to correct the defendant's name and add Norman Zeiler as a defendant. However, both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied due to a material factual dispute regarding whether Blassport-BBLC ever made contributions to the Fund, which is pivotal to determining BBLC's obligation to seek arbitration.

Pension benefitsMultiemployer planERISAMPPAAWithdrawal liabilityArbitrationSummary judgmentAmended complaintCorporate lawShareholder liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Margotta

Plaintiff, a building contractor, sued the Village of Sleepy Hollow and its Building Inspector, James Margotta, alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as retaliation for First Amendment speech and defamation. Rodriguez claimed selective enforcement and harassment by Margotta, motivated by personal and racial animus, through repeated inspections and demands for code compliance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a failure to state a claim and qualified immunity for Margotta. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no evidence of disparate treatment for selective enforcement, no protected property right in building inspections, no cognizable liberty interest, and no basis for a First Amendment retaliation claim or municipal liability. The state defamation claim was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction and specificity.

Summary JudgmentCivil Rights ViolationSelective EnforcementEqual ProtectionDue ProcessFirst Amendment RetaliationDefamationMunicipal LiabilityQualified ImmunityBuilding Codes
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Tushaj v. Elm Management Ass'n

The case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated July 10, 1992. Defendant Elm Management Association, Inc. sought to amend its answer to include a workers’ compensation affirmative defense and for summary judgment on that defense, but the initial motion was denied. The appellate court modified the order, granting Elm Management Association, Inc. leave to amend its answer to assert the defense, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision. Evidence from the plaintiff's deposition suggested Elm Management Association, Inc. exerted control over the plaintiff, raising a factual question about a potential special employment relationship and applicability of workers' compensation. The court emphasized that leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted unless there is evidence of prejudice or unfair surprise.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeAffirmative DefenseAmendment of PleadingsSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureEmployment RelationshipControl TestPrejudiceThird-Party Defendant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacino v. Equity Management Group

In this case, Emanuel Palacino, a porter for Equity Management Group, was injured in an elevator accident. Equity Management Group moved to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing Palacino was a special employee, and sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Equity's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Equity leave to amend its answer. However, the court found triable issues of fact concerning Palacino's special employee status and Equity's indemnification claim against Century Elevator Maintenance Corp., precluding summary judgment on those issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employee StatusLeave to Amend AnswerSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewElevator AccidentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 1999

Rios v. 474431 Associates

The case involves an appeal by defendant 474431 Associates from an amended judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff for personal injuries. The Supreme Court had granted partial summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff established through circumstantial evidence that a pipe fell from an elevated height, striking him while he worked at ground level in the defendant's building. The appellate court affirmed the amended judgment, finding the plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment on liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the award of damages did not deviate materially from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDamagesCircumstantial EvidenceFalling ObjectConstruction SiteLiabilityAffirmed Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2005

Hotel 57 LLC v. Harvard Maintenance, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff hotel sought over $300,000 for replacing 16 scratched windows, attributing the damage to the defendant's window cleaners. The defendant denied responsibility, suggesting the scratches were preexisting. Crucially, the plaintiff destroyed and replaced the windows without notifying the defendant, sixteen months prior to filing the lawsuit. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on spoliation of evidence. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing the plaintiff's intentional destruction of evidence critical to the lawsuit, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

spoliation of evidencesummary judgmentappellate reviewwindow damageproperty damageintentional destruction of evidencecivil procedureNew York lawconstructionnegligence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valerio v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, Josefina Reyes and her children, sued the City and their landlord for personal injuries due to lead paint exposure in their apartment. The children, Edwin and Edgar, developed elevated blood lead levels. Plaintiffs alleged the City failed to enforce lead-poisoning statutes (LPPPA), violated civil rights (42 USC § 1983), and was negligent, among other claims. The City moved for summary judgment, while plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their complaint to assert a breach of special duty. The court found no private right of action under LPPPA or for civil rights violations in private housing, and ruled that the City had no contract-based obligation regarding lead abatement. However, the court granted plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend the complaint to include a special duty claim, recognizing that factual questions regarding the City's negligent abatement during occupancy might suffice to show a breach of special duty. The City's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all originally pleaded claims against the City.

lead poisoninglead paintsummary judgmentspecial dutynegligencecivil rightsLPPPAmunicipal liabilitylandlord liabilityHousing Preservation and Development
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 19,659 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