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. 2023 NY Slip Op 06179 [221 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Pierce v. Archer Daniels Midland, Co.

Debra D. Pierce, as an individual and administrator of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed her claims against Archer Daniels Midland, Co. (ADM) and ADM Milling, Co. Her husband was fatally injured during employment, leading to claims including negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court had granted dismissal based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity, as Pierce had received workers' compensation benefits naming ADM Milling as the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Pierce's direct claims against ADM Milling due to the finality of the Workers' Compensation Board decision. However, the Court reversed the dismissal of future cross-claims against ADM Milling, citing the grave injury exception allowing third-party actions. Additionally, the dismissal of the complaint and cross-claims against ADM was reversed as premature, given unresolved factual issues regarding corporate control.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityGrave Injury ExceptionParent Corporation LiabilityMotion to DismissCollateral AttackJudicial EstoppelThird-Party ActionIndemnification and ContributionEmployment LawWrongful Death
References
18
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06859
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Sariyah L.J. (Antonio J.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order that denied Antonio J.'s motion to vacate a default order which determined him to be a notice-only father. The court found that Antonio J. failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default, having chosen to attend a meeting with his shelter worker without notifying his attorney or the court. Furthermore, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as his affidavit did not establish substantial and continuous contact or financial support for the child, Sariyah L.J., in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]. The appeal from the underlying August 20, 2018 order was dismissed as nonappealable.

Family LawPaternityDefault JudgmentVacaturParental RightsChild CustodyAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessInfant CaseMotion Practice
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02626 [171 AD3d 474]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Antonio v. West 70th Owners Corp.

Plaintiff Jason Antonio claimed he was injured after slipping and falling on slippery stairs because he was directed to remove his boots while working. Defendants West 70th Owners Corp. and SEPI Realty, LLC moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants established prima facie that they did not exercise supervisory control over the means and methods of plaintiff's work. Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding apparent authority for the instruction to remove boots, and his own supervisor gave the ultimate direction. Furthermore, the record showed the stairs were not in a dangerous condition, as plaintiff testified they had no observable defects and he slipped solely due to wearing socks without boots.

negligenceLabor Lawsummary judgmentpremises liabilitysupervisory controlslip and fallhazardous conditionappellate divisionpersonal injuryrespondent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Salwen Paper Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

The plaintiff, Salwen Paper Co., Profit Sharing Retirement Trust, sued defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent performance. A prior federal action by the plaintiff was dismissed due to insufficient federal securities law claims, and the federal court explicitly declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the common-law claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the current state action based on res judicata, which Special Term granted. The appellate court reversed, holding that res judicata does not apply because the federal court's dismissal did not address the merits of the common-law claims. Therefore, the common-law claims can proceed in state court.

Res JudicataPendent JurisdictionFederal Securities LawCommon Law ClaimsBreach of Fiduciary DutyNegligencePrior DismissalAppellate ReviewJurisdictional DiscretionState Court Action
References
17
Case No. ADJ7274196
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

RONALD PIERCE vs. CITY OF TULARE

The applicant, Ronald Pierce, requested to appear telephonically for trial as an ADA accommodation, which the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied, citing due process and the need to observe witnesses. The Appeals Board dismissed Pierce's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's ruling was not a final decision. The Board also denied his Petition for Removal, finding no significant prejudice as the substantive issue was to be decided on briefs. Pierce was also advised that he does not have a right to free legal counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalTelephonic AppearanceADA AccommodationDue ProcessCross-examinationSubstantive RightFinal OrderAggrieved Party
References
5
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04927 [140 AD3d 1047]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2016

Ramirez v. I.G.C. Wall Systems, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and denying the defendant-appellant Antonio Iona's cross-motion for summary judgment based on the homeowner's exemption. The plaintiff's decedent was injured after falling from a makeshift ladder while working on a one-family home owned by Antonio Iona, who was also an officer of the general contractor, I.G.C. Wall Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that Antonio Iona's extensive involvement in the construction, including making and placing the ladder and instructing workers, negated his eligibility for the homeowner's exemption. Furthermore, the plaintiff successfully established a prima facie case for a Labor Law § 240(1) violation.

Homeowner's exemptionLabor Law § 240(1) liabilityLabor Law § 241(6) liabilityconstruction site accidentladder fallsummary judgmentpersonal injuryappellate reviewcontractor responsibilityworker safety
References
18
Case No. ADJ3274521 (POM 0289674)
Regular
Mar 06, 2012

ANTONIO ORTIZ (ANTONIO ORTIZ CUEVAS) vs. NEW REAL INC.; AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant Antonio Ortiz's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely as it was filed significantly after the deadline for reconsideration. Furthermore, the petition lacked proof of service on the opposing parties, and it was deemed "skeletal" for failing to cite any facts, evidence, or legal principles from the record. The Board strongly advised the applicant to consult with the Information and Assistance Officer for future filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceUntimely FilingSkeletal PetitionLabor Code § 5900(a)California Code of Regulations § 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitService OmissionDismissal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PIERCE & WEISS, LLP. v. Subrogation Partners LLC

Plaintiff Pierce & Weiss, LLP sued Subrogation Partners LLC, AON Recovery, Inc., and AON Re, Inc. for unpaid legal fees related to a breach of an attorney-client retainer contract. The central issue revolved around a motion for admission pro hac vice filed by attorneys Brian Letofsky and Daniel Watkins, seeking to represent Pierce & Weiss. Defendants opposed, arguing a conflict of interest due to Mr. Letofsky's prior and ongoing representation of Subrogation and AON in other matters. The Court determined that AON was a current client and Subrogation a former client of Mr. Letofsky, thus creating a conflict of interest due to divided loyalties. Consequently, the Court denied the motions for admission pro hac vice for both Mr. Letofsky and his partner, Mr. Watkins, disqualifying their firm, Watkins & Letofsky, from representing the plaintiff.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestPro Hac Vice MotionAttorney-Client RelationshipLegal EthicsLaw Firm RepresentationFee DisputeSubrogationRetainer AgreementProfessional Conduct Rules
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 1999

Leo v. Mt. St. Michael Academy

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning a slip and fall incident. Antonio Leo, a 16-year-old, alleged sustaining an ankle sprain on a worn, wet stairway on October 23, 1995. The defendant moved for summary judgment, presenting meteorological data indicating clear weather on the day of the incident, contradicting the plaintiff's claim of rain causing the wet condition. Witness testimony also refuted the presence of water. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint, finding no evidence that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallHazardous ConditionActual NoticeConstructive NoticeDocumentary EvidenceMeteorological ReportsDeposition Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Sumi Ohnuma

This case involves Merrill Lynch seeking to permanently stay arbitration proceedings initiated by respondents before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The core issue is determining when a limited partnership investment is "acquired" for the purpose of a six-year arbitration eligibility period under NASD Code section 15. Merrill Lynch argued the "trade date" controlled, while respondents contended it was the "settlement date," the "effective date" of the partnership, or a later date of alleged misrepresentation. The court ultimately held that the "trade date," when respondents irrevocably committed to purchase, initiated the six-year period, thus barring their arbitration claims as they were filed beyond this timeframe. The court also rejected the respondents' arguments based on collateral, equitable, and judicial estoppel.

Arbitration EligibilityNASD Code Section 15Statute of LimitationsTrade DateSettlement DateLimited Partnership InvestmentsSecurities ArbitrationFraudulent ConcealmentCollateral EstoppelEquitable Estoppel
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 174 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