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 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 21 MC 101, 04 Civ. 7272(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

In Re September 11 Property Damage

This opinion addresses the legal sufficiency of third-party actions filed by Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Silverstein), owners and developers of 7 World Trade Center, seeking indemnification and contribution. Silverstein, who was both a plaintiff and defendant in various lawsuits following the September 11, 2001, destruction of 7WTC, brought claims against OEM Design and Construction Defendants, Citigroup Design and Construction Defendants, and engineers Irwin Cantor and Syska. The court granted motions to dismiss from all third-party defendants. It found OEM defendants immune under the New York State Defense Emergency Act, Citigroup defendants protected by Silverstein's prior assumption of risk, and Irwin Cantor and Syska dismissed for failure to meet heightened pleading standards for licensed design professionals.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterProperty DamageBusiness LossThird-Party LitigationIndemnificationContributionMotions to DismissSDEA ImmunityAssumption of Risk
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goudreau v. Goudreau

This case details an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment concerning the equitable distribution of marital property and the denial of maintenance in a divorce action. The parties, married in 1978, had two children. The plaintiff worked in the defendant's contracting business without pay before developing a work-related partial disability and receiving workers' compensation benefits. The defendant's primary income came from his contracting business, and the couple acquired three parcels of real property during their marriage. The Supreme Court granted a divorce, distributed assets, and denied maintenance to both parties. On appeal, the court affirmed the equitable distribution, deeming it fair. However, the appellate court reversed the denial of maintenance, remitting the case for a new trial on that issue. This reversal was based on the Supreme Court's failure to provide a reasoned analysis for its decision, as required by Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (b), and concerns regarding the imputation of income to the plaintiff without adequately considering her partial disability or providing a factual basis for the calculation.

DivorceEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyMaintenanceSpousal SupportImputed IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPartial DisabilityAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05765
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2014

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Kaywood Properties, Ltd.

The case involves an appeal by Kaywood Properties, Ltd., from an order denying its motion for summary judgment. The Commissioners of State Insurance Fund sued Kaywood Properties for allegedly unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. Kaywood Properties argued it had no employees during the relevant period, thus owing no premiums. The Supreme Court denied their motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found that Kaywood's affidavit contained only conclusory assertions without sufficient evidentiary support to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PremiumsSummary JudgmentAffirmationAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityPayrollEvidentiary SupportConclusory AssertionsSupreme Court
References
6
Case No. 61 AD3d 88
Regular Panel Decision

Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates LLC v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioner, Lighthouse Pointe Property Associates LLC, challenged the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to deny its properties' inclusion in the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP) through a CPLR article 78 proceeding. DEC's denial was based on its determination that the properties did not meet the statutory definition of a brownfield site, arguing that contamination levels were minimal and did not complicate redevelopment, with issues primarily stemming from solid waste. Lighthouse presented substantial evidence of contamination, including hazardous wastes exceeding cleanup standards, which had demonstrably hindered redevelopment efforts by impacting financing and regulatory approvals. The Supreme Court initially sided with Lighthouse, but the Appellate Division reversed, deferring to DEC's expertise. The Court of Appeals ultimately reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that DEC's interpretation of "brownfield site" was arbitrarily narrow and contrary to the broad legislative intent of the BCP, thereby reinstating the Supreme Court's judgment to grant Lighthouse's application.

Brownfield Cleanup ProgramEnvironmental Conservation LawContaminationReal Property RedevelopmentHazardous WasteSolid Waste LandfillSoil Cleanup ObjectivesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04220
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2024

Spina v. Browning Hotel Props., LLC

The plaintiff, Kaitlyn Spina, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss her complaint and denied her cross-motion for leave to amend. Spina sought damages for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision after allegedly being sexually assaulted by a hotel employee at a property owned and operated by the defendants, Browning Hotel Properties, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying Spina's cross-motion to amend, as the proposed amendments were not palpably insufficient. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, as the proposed amended complaint sufficiently pleaded causes of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The order was reversed, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was granted.

negligent hiringnegligent retentionnegligent supervisionsexual assaulthotel liabilityleave to amend complaintmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)CPLR 3025 (b)Appellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartog v. Hartog

This equitable distribution case concerns the appeal of a wife from an Appellate Division order modifying a Supreme Court judgment on divorce and property distribution after a 23-year marriage. Key issues include whether the appreciation of the husband's separate property businesses and his bonus constituted marital property, the court's authority to order life insurance or liens for maintenance, and the appropriate duration of maintenance. The Court of Appeals reinstated the Supreme Court's finding that a proportionate share of the businesses' appreciation and the husband's bonus were marital property, criticizing the Appellate Division's 'exacting causation prerequisite.' It also reinstated lifetime maintenance for the wife, emphasizing the mandatory consideration of the predivorce standard of living. However, the Court agreed with the Appellate Division that ordering life insurance or estate liens was inappropriate given the husband's uninsurability and lack of inherent judicial authority for liens, and upheld the consideration of tax consequences in the distributive award. The final decision modifies the Appellate Division's order and, as modified, affirms it.

Equitable distributionMarital propertySeparate property appreciationSpousal maintenanceLifetime maintenanceLife insuranceEstate lienDivorceAppellate reviewActive involvement
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,522 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