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
Apr 27, 2012

China Auto Care, LLC v. China Auto Care (Caymans)

Plaintiffs China Auto Care, LLC and China Auto Care Holdings, LLC brought an action against China Auto Care (Caymans), Digisec Corporation, and the estate of Chander Oberoi, alleging various causes of action stemming from the 2011 sale of Digisec's assets. Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' "Business Relationship and Shareholder Agreement." The court analyzed the scope of the arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding the clause to be broad, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were within its scope, as they "touch matters" governed by the Shareholder Agreement. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, staying the litigation and compelling arbitration.

ArbitrationShareholder AgreementCorporate DisputeMotion to CompelFederal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit PrecedentFraudulent InducementCorporate GovernanceCayman Islands LawStay of Proceedings
References
25
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09604
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Maggio v. 24 West 57 PFF, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Maggio, a drywall installer, was injured after falling from a scaffold staircase at a premises owned by 24 West 57 APF, LLC and leased by Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY). The scaffold, constructed by Atlantic Hoist & Scaffolding, LLC, had a modified staircase with plywood covering some steps, lacking anti-slip protection and having an irregular rise. Plaintiff attributed his fall to these conditions and the presence of construction debris. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from defendants 24 West and ATNY, citing outstanding discovery, and later denied renewed motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division found 24 West and ATNY justified in bringing the second motion but denied their request for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual questions regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The court also denied plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting ATNY conditional contractual indemnification against R&R, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08000 [189 AD3d 681]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Matias v. West 16th Realty LLC

Jose Matias, an employee of a linen company, sustained injuries on premises owned by West 16th Realty LLC and leased to Grey Dog Chelsea Inc. He was struck on the head by a cellar door while climbing stairs from the restaurant's cellar. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to defendant West 16th Realty LLC. The court determined that as an out-of-possession landlord, West 16th Realty LLC was not liable, as the lease did not mandate cellar door maintenance or repair, and no significant structural or design defect violating a specific statutory safety provision was present. The court also held that West 16th owed no duty under the Administrative Code of the City of New York regarding the sidewalk.

Out-of-possession landlordPremises liabilitySummary judgmentCellar door accidentStructural defectStatutory safety provisionLease obligationsAdministrative Code liabilityAppellate DivisionFirst Department
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2005

Smith v. 21 West LLC Limited Liability Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santos v. 304 West 56th Street Realty LLC

An HVAC mechanic, referred to as the plaintiff, sustained injuries after falling through a collapsed concrete platform in an alleyway while retrieving a tool post-work. He was performing work for Bricco Restaurant Corp. located at 304 West 56th Street, while the platform was connected to buildings owned by Eighth & 56th Street Associates, LLP. The plaintiff filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Bricco Restaurant Corp., 304 West 56th Street Realty LLC, and Eighth & 56th Street Associates, LLP. The court dismissed all Labor Law claims against all defendants, reasoning the platform was a permanent installation and the plaintiff was not engaged in covered activities at the work site. Negligence claims were also dismissed against Bricco Restaurant Corp. and 304 West 56th Street Realty LLC. However, the negligence claim based on res ipsa loquitur against Eighth & 56th Street Associates, LLP survived the summary judgment motion.

Labor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentRes Ipsa LoquiturWorkplace AccidentBuilding CollapseHVAC MechanicOwner LiabilityStatutory InterpretationCommon-Law Negligence
References
17
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05666 [143 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2016

Jerdonek v. 41 West 72 LLC

Plaintiff Orfeusz M. Jerdonek was injured after falling from a scaffold while working in a boiler room at 41 West 72nd Street. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against Bar Construction Corp. The court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment to defendants 41 West 72 LLC and Property Markets Group, Inc., dismissing the Labor Law claims against them. The decision clarifies that the Hermitage Condominium's Board of Managers is the proper 'owner' for liability purposes concerning common elements, not the condominium sponsor or individual unit owners, due to the board's exclusive control over these elements. The court also granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against the Hermitage Board.

Condominium LawLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentOwner LiabilityCommon ElementsBoard of ManagersScaffold AccidentReal Property LawAppellate DivisionFirst Department
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamberson v. Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Lamberson, a Caucasian male, sued his employer, Six West Retail Acquisition Inc., and individuals Sheldon Solow and Jeffery Jacobs, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law. Lamberson claimed he was unlawfully discharged after complaining about the reassignment of an African-American employee, Derrick Caver, from a public-facing role due to his appearance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamberson was fired for poor managerial judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding Lamberson, as a Caucasian, was not a member of a protected class and failed to show a hostile work environment or infringement on his right to interracial association. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, ruling that Lamberson raised a triable issue as to whether his complaints about Caver's reassignment were protected activity and if there was a causal connection to his discharge. Consequently, retaliation claims against Six West, Solow, and Jacobs survive.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawUnlawful DischargeSummary JudgmentManagerial DutiesEmployee ReassignmentHostile Work Environment
References
43
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07024
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Matter of Piorkowski v. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto

Claimant David J. Piorkowski suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2006 during his employment with Pat Forsha Truck & Auto, leading to surgeries and ongoing symptoms. In 2014, he filed a separate claim, alleging a new left knee injury while working for Wal-Mart, stemming from two incidents in September 2014 where he assisted customers. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the 2014 incidents constituted an exacerbation of his preexisting condition rather than a new injury, disallowing the claim. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, citing the Board's expertise in distinguishing between new injuries and exacerbations, and its authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the September 2014 incidents did not represent new injuries.

Workers' Compensation Law JudgePreexisting ConditionCausation DisputeMedical EvidenceAppellate Division Third DepartmentBoard Decision AffirmedIndustrial AccidentOrthopedic SurgeryIndependent Medical ExaminationWork-Related Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. 14 West Garment Factory Corp.

This case concerns a special proceeding initiated by Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, seeking injunctive relief against apparel manufacturers and contractors, 14 West Garment Factory Corp. and Ding and Mag Fashion, Inc. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were producing and selling 'hot goods' in violation of Labor Law articles 6 and 19, pertaining to wage payment and minimum wage. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order, and the current opinion addresses the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction and 14 West's cross-motion to dismiss. Justice Alice Schlesinger granted the preliminary injunction and denied the motion to dismiss, affirming the strict liability of manufacturers and contractors under the 'hot goods' law, distinct from retailers who have a good-faith exception. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the statute to protect workers from underpayment and to prevent illicit profits from illegal labor.

Injunctive ReliefLabor Law ViolationsHot GoodsWage TheftMinimum WageApparel IndustryStrict LiabilityStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawRegulatory Enforcement
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 763 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