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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00204 [190 AD3d 788]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2021

Yong Qiao Zhao v. A.T.C. Constr. Group Corp.

The plaintiff, Yong Qiao Zhao, appealed from an order regarding his personal injury claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) after falling from a ladder. He was injured while disposing of construction debris from one project at a dumpster located at an unrelated project site. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which had granted summary judgment to 237 Henry Street Realty, LLC, dismissing the claim against it. The court found no nexus between 237 Henry and the plaintiff's work, as he was not hired to work at their property. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion against A.T.C. Construction Group Corp. due to the existence of triable issues of fact.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityNexus RequirementPremises LiabilityConstruction Debris
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. C. T. Brickman & Associates, Inc.

Frank Ricupero, a mason employed by defendant C. T. Brickman and Associates, sustained injuries at a construction site in Albany County when a stepladder slipped. The property owner (plaintiff) was held strictly liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) in Ricupero's initial action and paid a $75,000 judgment. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought common-law and contractual indemnification from C. T. Brickman and Associates, Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc., and Venditti Brothers, Inc. The Supreme Court found C. T. Brickman and Associates solely negligent under Labor Law § 200, ordering indemnification for the plaintiff and BBL. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that C. T. Brickman and Associates controlled Ricupero's work, breached its duty to provide a safe workplace, and was the party at fault, thereby liable for indemnification, including counsel fees for BBL.

Common-law indemnificationContractual indemnificationLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Safe workplace dutyStepladder accidentConstruction site injurySubcontractor negligenceGeneral contractor liabilityEmployee supervision
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Tanya T.

This case concerns an appeal from an Albany County Family Court order which adjudicated four children, Tanya T., Tabitha T., Deion T., and Davonna T., as abused and/or neglected. The petition alleged that their father sexually molested Davonna in Deion’s presence. The Family Court issued orders of supervision and protection, mandating treatment for the father and prohibiting visitation. On appeal, the court affirmed the Family Court’s findings, determining that the children's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated by behavioral changes, expert testimony, and consistent statements. The appellate court also upheld the denial of the father's visitation petition, concluding it was not in the children's best interests due to their fear and the father's history of violence.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual MolestationCorroboration of Child StatementsBehavioral ChangesExpert TestimonyDenial of VisitationBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.T. v. Harder

Named plaintiffs A.T. and B.C., representing a class of 16- and 17-year-olds, sought relief against Broome County Jail officials for alleged unconstitutional solitary confinement practices and denial of educational and disability services. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the IDEA, ADA, and Section 504. The court found substantial likelihood of success on the merits for all claims, noting the developmental vulnerability of juveniles and the serious risk of harm from solitary confinement. Consequently, the court granted motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction, enjoining certain disciplinary isolation practices and mandating access to educational and mental health services for juveniles.

Class ActionPreliminary InjunctionSolitary ConfinementJuvenile DetentionEighth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentIDEAADARehabilitation ActDue Process
References
61
Case No. 2013-2706 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., concerned an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, NYS Acupuncture, P.C., sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm, which had moved for summary judgment arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted State Farm's motion. On appeal, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. contended that the fee schedule reductions were improper. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the prior ruling, finding that State Farm adequately demonstrated it had fully compensated the plaintiff for acupuncture services based on the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule for services performed by chiropractors, referencing Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleNo-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesChiropractorsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee Schedule ReductionAssigned BenefitsMedical Billing
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00798 [224 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Camrem C. (Lydia C.)

Lydia C. appealed a Family Court order that found she neglected her child, Camrem C., by inflicting or allowing physical harm. The Family Court's finding was based on extensive medical evidence showing the child had multiple welts, lacerations, and bruises in various stages of healing, indicating a pattern of corporal punishment. This medical evidence corroborated out-of-court statements made by the child to a paraprofessional, the Child Advocacy Center, and an ACS caseworker. The appellant's testimony, which attributed the injuries to a single incident, was deemed insufficient to account for the variety of injuries observed. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the neglect finding, concluding that the record supported the Family Court's decision and that the appellant, at a minimum, should have been aware of the injuries and acted to protect the child.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewPhysical HarmCorporal PunishmentMedical EvidenceOut-of-court StatementsCredibility FindingsParental ResponsibilityChild Protection
References
4
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haughton v. T & J Electrical Corp.

Plaintiff Archebald C. Haughton, Jr., a maintenance worker at Hudson Valley Community College, suffered severe injuries from electrocution while attempting to restore power during an outage. Despite knowing that the power company, Niagara Mohawk, was assembling a crew, plaintiff's supervisors directed him to work on high-voltage equipment in a dark and smoky room, without proper protective gear. Plaintiff and his wife sued Niagara Mohawk and T & J Electrical Corporation, an electrical contractor, alleging breach of duty of care. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the actions of the plaintiff and his supervisors constituted an unforeseeable intervening act. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, absolving the defendants of liability.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseIntervening ActElectrocutionWorkplace AccidentHigh VoltageDuty of CareNegligenceAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05500 [242 AD3d 829]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2025

DeMarco v. C.A.C. Indus., Inc.

The plaintiff, Peter DeMarco, suffered personal injuries when excavation walls collapsed at a Queens work site. He sued C.A.C. Industries, Inc., a contractor that provided a backhoe and operating engineer to his employer, the City of New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Supreme Court, Queens County, partially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and certain Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, while denying dismissal of the common-law negligence claim. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant lacked authority to supervise for the Labor Law claims but failed to demonstrate a special employment relationship, leaving triable issues of fact regarding the common-law negligence claim and whether the defendant's excavation created or exacerbated the dangerous condition.

Excavation CollapseTrench SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSpecial EmploymentContractor NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealDuty of Care
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 3,109 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