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. Index No. 300908/17 Appeal No. 3021 Case No. 2023-04605
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Robles-Martinez v. Partnership 92 West, L.P.

Plaintiff Joshua Robles-Martinez, a delivery worker, sustained injuries when a sidewalk hatch door struck his head while making a delivery to Columbus Gourmet Food. Plaintiff alleged a dangerous condition stemming from a building facade modification that prevented the door from fully opening. Defendant landlord Partnership 92 West, L.P.'s motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims for contractual indemnification against tenant Columbus Gourmet Food, was denied. Partnership failed to demonstrate the modification was tenant-created or a nonstructural defect, and its indemnification clause did not cover its own potential negligence. Additionally, third-party defendant Fischer Foods of New York, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning plaintiff's 'grave injury' claim, which involved a traumatic brain injury and alleged permanent unemployability. The Supreme Court's order was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationLandlord LiabilityTenant LiabilityPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDelivery Worker InjurySidewalk Hatch DoorFacade ModificationGrave Injury Claim
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04978
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Robles v. Taconic Mgt. Co., LLC

Edilberto Robles, a laborer, sustained head injuries from a closing freight elevator door and commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence against multiple entities involved in the building's management, operation, and his employment. The Supreme Court granted several motions for summary judgment. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It denied summary judgment to Taconic Management Company, LLC, Taconic Management Corp., 111 Chelsea, LLC, and Waldorf Carting Corporation on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding supervision and control and the alter ego defense. The court also denied summary judgment on indemnification claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and Waldorf Carting Corporation. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Taconic and Chelsea, and the dismissal of claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and New York Elevator & Electrical Corporation were affirmed.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentIndemnificationThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawAlter ego defensePremises liability
References
20
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05140
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2023

Matter of Robles v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

Jose Robles sought to amend an indicated report of child maltreatment from the New York State Central Register, alleging he subjected his children to a religious ritual involving blindfolds and cutting with a ritual blade. The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) denied his application after a fair hearing, finding the report was supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed OCFS's determination, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence. The court also found substantial evidence that the acts forming the basis of the report were relevant and reasonably related to his employment as a childcare provider. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseReligious RitualCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFair PreponderanceChild Care ProviderSocial Services LawAppellate Division
References
8
Case No. ADJ7332443
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

ROBERTO ROBLES vs. ANDY GUMP, INC., OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE CO.

This case involves applicant Roberto Robles' petitions for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision denying his claim for several industrial injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is dismissing Robles' petitions because they were unverified, a mandatory requirement under Labor Code section 5902. The WCJ's report alerted applicant to this defect, and he failed to cure it or provide a valid explanation within a reasonable time. The WCAB noted that even if the petitions were not dismissed for this procedural defect, they would have been denied on their merits based on the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnverified PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyWCJ ReportCompensable Industrial InjurySubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessLabor Code Section 3208.3(h)
References
1
Case No. ADJ8935865
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

JOSE ROBLES vs. HORIZON PERSONNEL SERVICES, COMPANION PROPERTY & CASUALTY, administered by CARL WARREN & CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision that denied applicant Jose Robles' claim for a wrist injury. The WCAB found that the WCJ erred by giving undue weight to the uncorroborated testimony of a supervisor who did not witness the incident and whose employer lacked personal knowledge of the incident details. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's findings and substituted its own, finding that Robles sustained an industrial injury to his right wrist and hand. One commissioner dissented, asserting the WCJ's credibility determination was based on substantial evidence.

AOE/COEIn pro perPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJApplicant's testimonyHearsay testimonyVideotape evidencePersonal knowledgeReasonable probability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robles v. Cox & Co.

Carmen Robles ("Plaintiff") sued her former employer, Cox and Company, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleging age discrimination under ADEA, Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL; retaliation under Title VII; breach of contract; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss several claims. The court, presided over by Judge Spatt, granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the age discrimination claim under NYCHRL, the Title VII retaliation claim (for failure to state a claim), the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and the breach of contract claim. The court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Title VII retaliation claim based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies but ultimately dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff was granted twenty days to file an amended complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEANYSHRLNYCHRLBreach of ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
64
Case No. ADJ10321666
Regular
Jan 30, 2018

ASCENCION ROBLES vs. L&S FRAMING, INC., BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not met by the petitioner. The WCAB found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision were ultimately issued. Therefore, the petition was denied based on the WCJ's analysis of the arguments.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedydenial of removalextraordinary remedyADJ10321666
References
2
Case No. ADJ7756309
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

Miguel Robles vs. Evolution Fresh, Inc., Amtrust North America

In **Robles v. Evolution Fresh, Inc.**, the applicant sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration. This action was taken to allow further study of the factual and legal issues presented in the case. The Board aims to issue a just and reasoned decision after thorough review and potential further proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Decisionstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersRonnie G. CaplaneDejdra E. Lowe
References
0
Case No. ADJ11184146, ADJ11184147
Regular
Oct 24, 2019

ABEL PEREZ ROBLES vs. GATE GOURMET, INC.; ZURICH NORTH AMERICA CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's August 8, 2019 decision in the case of Abel Perez Robles v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. The Board rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings. This action is not a final determination on the merits, and parties retain their rights to seek reconsideration of any subsequent WCJ decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRescinded DecisionFurther ProceedingsWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeDecision After ReconsiderationTrial LevelGate GourmetZurich North America
References
0
Case No. ADJ6751788
Regular
Aug 16, 2010

MOISES ROBLES GARCIA vs. ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding of industrial injury for applicant Moises Robles Garcia. Defendant Able Building Maintenance argued the applicant failed to prove injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and raised affirmative defenses of intoxication and material deviation. The Board rescinded the original decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, specifically to determine AOE/COE and consider the applicant's credibility and deposition transcripts. The WCJ must now make a determination on AOE/COE and potentially other defenses.

AOE/COEintoxication defensematerial deviationexcluded evidencedeposition transcriptswitness demeanorcredibilitypreponderance of the evidencecausal connectionrational incident of work
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 36 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