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. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Patrick Allen, a former UPS employee, sued UPS for alleged violations of the New York State and City Human Rights Laws after being terminated in March 2010 for a faked work injury. The case was removed to the Eastern District of New York. Allen later sought to amend his complaint to add a claim under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, alleging UPS breached a collective bargaining agreement and his union breached its duty of fair representation. Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. recommended denying the motion to amend, finding the proposed claim untimely due to a six-month statute of limitations for hybrid § 301 claims and Allen's failure to show good cause for the delay. Senior District Judge I. Leo Glasser adopted the R&R in its entirety, denying Allen's motion for leave to amend his complaint, agreeing that the claim was futile and untimely, and that Allen had not shown good cause for the delay.

Motion to Amend ComplaintLMRA Section 301Hybrid ClaimDuty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsFutility of AmendmentFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 15Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16Collective Bargaining AgreementWrongful Termination
References
41
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

Detrick v. H & E MACHINERY, INC.

The plaintiff, Sherry Kellogg Detrick, sued her former employer, H & E Machinery, Inc., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII, Equal Pay Act violations, and state law claims including the New York Human Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Detrick contended she endured a hostile work environment and unequal pay compared to her male successor. H & E moved for summary judgment, arguing the Title VII and state law claims were time-barred, and the Equal Pay Act claim lacked a prima facie showing. The court granted H & E's motion, finding Detrick's harassment claims untimely and her Equal Pay Act claim unsupported by sufficient evidence of substantially equal jobs, and declined jurisdiction over the remaining state human rights claim.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineNew York Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentTimeliness of Claims
References
29
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08369
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2014

Matter of Allen v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to annul the termination of petitioner Lionel Allen's employment by the City of New York. The court found that the City violated Allen's due process rights by initially terminating him under Civil Service Law § 73 for non-occupational injuries, then rescinding that and re-terminating him retroactively under Civil Service Law § 71 for occupational injuries, without offering a new opportunity to be heard. The decision highlighted the procedural differences between the two sections of the Civil Service Law, noting that Section 71 offers greater protections. The court also rejected the respondents' suggestion to order a hearing to determine Allen's fitness, stating it would nullify the due process holding.

Due ProcessEmployment TerminationCivil Service LawOccupational InjuryNon-Occupational InjuryReinstatementArticle 78 PetitionRetroactive TerminationProcedural ProtectionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutton v. Tompkins County

Plaintiffs Douglas Sutton and Anne Serling-Sutton sued Tompkins County Department of Social Services (DSS) and its employees, alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They claimed DSS improperly removed their daughter, E.S., from their custody based on unsubstantiated sexual abuse allegations. The court found that DSS conducted an extensive investigation, which included interviews with E.S. and her therapist, and had a reasonable, good-faith basis for its findings, supported by E.S.'s consistent claims of abuse. The court concluded that DSS's conduct did not "shock the conscience" and granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the federal civil rights claim on the merits and the state law claims without prejudice.

Child AbuseParental RightsSubstantive Due Process42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityFamily SeparationChild WelfareTompkins County DSSSexual Abuse AllegationsSummary Judgment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peninsula National Bank v. Allen Carpet Shops, Inc. (In Re Allen Carpet Shops, Inc.)

The creditors' committee moved for reargument and reconsideration of a previous court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of Peninsula National Bank (PNB) against Allen Carpet Shops, Inc., the debtor in a Chapter 11 reorganization. PNB sought administrative priority for various payroll account overdrafts. The court reaffirmed the summary judgment for a $19,545.16 portion of PNB's claim and clarified that a $12,684.17 pre-petition overdraft constituted a general unsecured claim. However, the court identified several unanswered material facts concerning a $37,892.92 portion of PNB's claim, which involved checks drawn pre-petition but honored post-petition. Consequently, the court warranted a rehearing specifically on this disputed portion of the claim, effectively granting the committee's motion for reargument in part.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationAdversary ProceedingSummary JudgmentReargument MotionAdministrative Expense PriorityWage PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionOverdraftsCreditors' Committee
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05267 [220 AD3d 882]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2023

Omwathath v. Frank E. Basil, Inc.

Lakhram Omwathath filed an action seeking damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering after the death of the decedent, who was injured while working for Frank E. Basil, Inc. The decedent and subsequently the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, which the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, concluding that the claims against Frank E. Basil, Inc. were barred and no allegations were made against Data Dimensions.

wrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingworkers' compensationmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a)documentary evidenceemployer immunityappellate affirmanceprocedural lawstatutory bar
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08397 [177 AD3d 864]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2019

Landaverde v. Lin-Ann Enters., Inc.

Plaintiff Olga D. Landaverde suffered injuries after slipping on ice on property owned by defendant Lin-Ann Enterprises, Inc. Having received Workers' Compensation benefits, she initiated a personal injury action against the defendant. Lin-Ann Enterprises, Inc. sought summary judgment, asserting it was an alter ego of Landaverde's employer, Logan Bus Co., Inc., and thus immune under Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department. The appellate court found the defendant failed to demonstrate prima facie evidence of an alter ego relationship, specifically lacking proof that the entities operated as a single integrated unit or that one controlled the other's daily operations.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal Injury DamagesCorporate VeilIntegrated EntityDay-to-day Operations Control
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Allen (Commr. of Labor)

Claimant Maxine E. Allen, a telecommuter residing in Florida but working for a New York employer via electronic linkup, sought unemployment insurance benefits from New York after her telecommuting arrangement ended. The New York Commissioner of Labor determined her ineligible, asserting her employment was localized in Florida and that she had made a false statement on her claim form. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals further affirmed, holding that under Labor Law § 511, physical presence determines the localization of employment for unemployment insurance purposes, thereby rendering Allen ineligible for New York benefits. The court also upheld the recoverable overpayment for the false statement.

unemployment insurancetelecommutinginterstate employmentlocalization of employmentLabor Lawphysical presenceNew YorkFloridaremote workeligibility
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,267 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