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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08303
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2017

Prevost v. One City Block LLC

Plaintiff Ronald Prevost, a laborer, was injured after slipping on a loose sprinkler pipe at a construction site owned by One City Block LLC. He and his wife sued One City for common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. One City then commenced a third-party action against Island Fire Sprinkler, Inc., the subcontractor responsible for installing the sprinkler system, seeking contractual and common-law indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court denied various summary judgment motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting One City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and granting One City's claim for contractual indemnification by Island Fire. The court also denied Island Fire's motion for summary judgment dismissing One City's claim against it for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Finally, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of One City's motion for post-note-of-issue discovery seeking additional independent medical examinations of plaintiff.

Construction accidentLabor LawPremises liabilitySummary judgmentContractual indemnificationBreach of contractInsurance procurementPost-note-of-issue discoveryIndependent medical examinationAppellate procedure
References
16
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07947 [177 AD3d 679]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2019

Gerardi v. I.J. Litwak Realty Ltd. Partnership

Lisa Gerardi, a school bus driver, sustained personal injuries after a fall in a bus terminal parking lot. She initiated a personal injury action against the property owner, I.J. Litwak Realty Limited Partnership, and the lessee, Block 7932, Inc. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Block 7932, Inc. was an alter ego of Gerardi's employer, thus invoking the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity defense. The Supreme Court initially granted their motion. However, the Appellate Division reversed the decision, citing conflicting evidence regarding the actual identity of the plaintiff's employer, which precluded summary judgment for Block 7932, Inc.

Personal injurySummary judgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity defenseAlter egoEmployer liabilityAppellate reviewConflicting evidenceBus terminalParking lot fall
References
4
Case No. ADJ6772495; ADJ7394371; ADJ11006855; ADJ7648530; ADJ6788916
Regular
Oct 22, 2025

Amy Stacy Bosko, Elsie Gonzales, Marilyn Lonzanida, Ray Dunhams, Kuchita Hawthorne vs. Learning Care Group, Coca Cola Enterprises, IHSS Solano County, AC Transit, UPS

Applicants Amy Stacy Bosko, Elsie Gonzales, Marilyn Lonzanida, Ray Dunhams, and Kuchita Hawthorne filed a joint Petition for Removal challenging a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) July 13, 2022 orders. These orders denied their petitions to set their cases on a non-OD-Legal block day and to terminate all OD-Legal Block days at the Oakland District Office, citing the WCJ's lack of authority. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition and the WCJ's report, denied the Petition for Removal. The Board determined that removal, an extraordinary remedy, was not warranted as the petitioners failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWCABWCJOD-Legal Block DayScheduling AuthorityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAppeals Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2003

McLaughlin v. Malone & Tate Builders, Inc.

The plaintiff, a mason employed by a subcontractor, was injured on a construction project in July 1998 when concrete blocks fell from a scaffold level above him. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against the defendant, the general contractor. Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the blocks were being incorporated into the work, not stored, and thus Labor Law § 240 (1) regarding securing devices was not applicable. Additionally, the court found no normal exposure to falling objects to warrant overhead protection under Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1) and (2).

Construction accidentScaffoldingFalling objectsLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilityIndustrial Code violationWorker injury
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00572 [191 AD3d 692]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2021

Penny v. County of Suffolk

In a personal injury action, plaintiff Harry Penny, a track coach, tripped and fell over starting blocks during a track meet. Defendants New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., and Section XI moved for summary judgment, arguing they neither controlled the premises nor created the dangerous condition, and that plaintiff assumed the risk. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that evidence raised triable issues of fact regarding the defendants' responsibility for the equipment and the creation of the hazardous condition. Furthermore, the Appellate Division concluded that the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff assumed the risk or that the starting blocks constituted an open and obvious, non-inherently dangerous condition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionTrip and FallSports EventAssumption of RiskContributionIndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

League of Voluntary Hospitals & Homes v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital & Health Care Workers Union

The court addresses an application for a preliminary injunction against Local 1199, a union planning a three-day strike. The League of Voluntary Hospitals and Homes of N. Y. sought the injunction following a previous temporary restraining order concerning a one-day strike. The union argued that each planned strike required a new legal proceeding, but the court deemed the strikes "episodic and organically connected." Citing concerns about blocked ingress/egress to hospitals and the union president's threats to "shut down" facilities, the judge found a preliminary injunction necessary under Labor Law § 807 to protect public health and safety. The injunction restrains the union from unlawfully interfering with hospital operations, blocking access, and picketing within certain distances of hospital entrances and emergency rooms.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionStrike ActionUnion ActivityHospital AccessPicketing RegulationsCollective BargainingCivil Disobedience ThreatPublic Health and SafetyIngress Egress Interference
References
1
Case No. No. 44
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

The People v. Marc Mitchell

Marc Mitchell, the defendant, appealed his conviction for fraudulent accosting, arguing that the term 'accost' requires a physical, aggressive approach to a specific individual. The New York Court of Appeals rejected this narrow interpretation, stating that dictionaries from the statute's enactment defined 'accost' as 'to approach,' 'speak to first,' or 'address.' The Court found the complaint sufficient, as Mitchell blocked a Manhattan sidewalk with milk crates, requiring pedestrians to walk around him, and asked passing pedestrians to 'Help the homeless,' while allegedly misrepresenting where donations would go. The Court concluded that his actions, including blocking the sidewalk and calling out, constituted accosting. The dissenting opinion argued that the majority's interpretation was too broad, potentially criminalizing protected speech, and that 'accost' implies a more assertive, targeted contact, which was not present in Mitchell's actions. The Appellate Term's order was affirmed.

fraudulent accostingstatutory interpretationNew York Court of Appealsmisdemeanor complaintfacial sufficiencyactus reusmens reaconfidence gamestreet swindlelegislative intent
References
58
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01567
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2019

Ferdinand v. Salino

The plaintiffs, Susan and David Ferdinand, initiated an action against their neighbors, Gary and Karen Salino, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and private nuisance, also seeking a permanent injunction. The dispute arose after the Ferdinands began renovating their property, and the Salinos allegedly posted misleading signs, made disingenuous complaints, harassed invitees, and prevented utility access. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from various acts, including placing signs on the plaintiffs' property, harassment, blocking the driveway, insulting invitees, and videotaping. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court affirmed the injunction against blocking the driveway and harassing invitees but found parts of it overly broad, specifically denying the injunction against placing signs on the plaintiffs' property (due to lack of evidence), videotaping, and general actions to chill economic value.

DefamationPreliminary InjunctionPrivate NuisanceProperty DisputeHarassmentFirst Amendment RightsOverly Broad OrderAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureReal Property Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1992

Claim of Block v. Stroheim & Romann, Inc.

A showroom assistant filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging acute depression resulted from a job transfer that required him to deal with less knowledgeable retail customers. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, concluding that the stress encountered was typical of a work environment and thus not a compensable accidental injury. On appeal, the higher court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's determination. The court considered the claimant's other arguments but found them without merit. Consequently, the Board's decision to deny workers' compensation benefits was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationDepressionStressJob TransferAccidental InjuryEmployment BenefitsShowroom AssistantBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewBenefits Denial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Block v. New York Electrical Workers' Union

The judgment of the Municipal Court was affirmed, with costs. No opinion.

References
0
Showing 1-10 of 79 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