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. 90 Cr. 203
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Baker

Nadine Baker appealed her conviction for petit theft at the Bronx Veterans Hospital, which stemmed from a dye-trapping operation. She was found guilty by a jury after being caught with visible and ultraviolet dye on her person, indicating she had handled stolen money. Baker challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the application of sentencing enhancements. The District Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also upheld the sentencing enhancement for theft from a person, finding that the victims were vulnerable and the property was within their arm's reach.

Criminal LawPetit TheftSentencing GuidelinesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewVeterans HospitalUndercover OperationCircumstantial EvidenceFalse StatementsVulnerable Victims
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Baker Hall, Inc.

Baker Hall, Inc. initiated a proceeding to annul a State Division of Human Rights determination that found the company unlawfully discriminated against a black employee by terminating him for sleeping on the job, while a white employee received only a suspension for a similar rule violation. The State Division had ordered re-employment and back pay. The court, however, annulled the determination, finding a lack of substantial evidence to support the commissioner's finding of discrimination. The court noted strong evidence that the complainant was indeed asleep on the job multiple times and that his termination was justified, distinguishing his situation from that of the white employee. The matter was remitted to the State Division for further proceedings to assess if Baker Hall's process of handling the charges against the complainant was discriminatory, while rejecting arguments concerning delay and res judicata.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSleeping on the JobRule ViolationDisparate TreatmentHuman Rights LawExecutive LawDue ProcessArbitrator's Findings
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00992 [224 AD3d 622]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2024

Zeetogroup, LLC v. Baker Hostetler, LLP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of Zeetogroup, LLC's claims against Baker Hostetler LLP and Marc Powers. The dismissal against Powers was upheld due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with CPLR 306-b regarding timely service, as they did not demonstrate reasonable diligence for an extension. The dismissal against Baker Hostetler LLP, concerning a malicious prosecution claim, was affirmed under New York's choice of law rules, which mandated applying California law. California law bars malicious prosecution claims stemming from contractually agreed-upon arbitrations, which was the case here.

DismissalService of ProcessCPLR 306-bCPLR 3211 (a) (7)CPLR 3211 (a) (8)Malicious ProsecutionChoice of LawCalifornia LawArbitrationAppellate Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramos v. Baker

In November 2005, an unnamed plaintiff was injured while using a log splitter on Robert E. Baker, Jr.'s property. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined the plaintiff was an employee of Woodland Tree Care, Inc., not Baker, and awarded benefits. In 2008, the plaintiff sued Baker for negligence. The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint, including Labor Law and OSHA claims, but denied Baker's summary judgment cross-motion. This appellate court reversed, ruling that Baker was entitled to summary judgment, dismissing the amended complaint because Baker lacked notice of the dangerous condition, the plaintiff was estopped from claiming employment by Baker, and Baker did not supervise the work.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceLog Splitter InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law Section 200OSHA RegulationsNegligent EntrustmentFailure to WarnEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2022

Wood v. Baker Bros. Excavating

Clifford Wood, a concrete laborer, sustained injuries after falling approximately three feet from a bridge footing at a work site. He initiated a lawsuit against Baker Brothers Excavating (KER), the general contractor, and Brinnier and Larios, P.C., an engineering firm, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Wood moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Supreme Court denied his motion, determining that while Wood met his initial burden, KER had raised triable issues of fact concerning the availability and usage of safety equipment and Wood's specific task at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against KER.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor LawSummary judgmentTriable issues of factWorksite safetyAppellate DivisionGeneral contractorEngineering firmPlaintiff's motion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. 528566
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christine Kelly (Kelly, Kevin (dec'd)

Claimant Christine Kelly filed a claim for death benefits after her husband's death, alleging it was causally-related to his established asbestos-related occupational disease. Liability for the original disability claim had been transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2011. The employer argued the Special Fund should be liable for the death benefits claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed that the death benefits claim was a new and distinct claim, accruing at the time of death in 2016. Therefore, its transfer to the Special Fund was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), as the Special Fund closed to new applications effective January 1, 2014, a ruling supported by Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, ruling that liability did not shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisCausally Related DeathLiability TransferStatutory Cut-off DateAppellate DivisionThird Judicial Department
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Yonkers Contracting Co.

The plaintiff's decedent, a construction worker, died after being caught between a 35-ton crane and a traffic barrier, leading to a wrongful death and personal injury action. The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including Baker Engineering NY, Inc., a consulting engineer hired by the New York State Department of Transportation for the construction project. The Supreme Court initially denied Baker's motion for summary judgment, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The appellate court found no evidence that Baker committed any affirmative act of negligence or that its contract with the DOT imposed liability, nor did Baker exercise supervision and control over the activity that caused the decedent's injury and death. Consequently, Baker's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it was dismissed.

Wrongful DeathPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentEngineer LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligence LawContractual LiabilityDuty to SuperviseDismissal of Complaint
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. County of Monroe

Richard Baker, a former Labor Foreman I for the County of Monroe’s Environmental Services Division, filed an action alleging unlawful termination and refusal to reinstate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York Human Rights Law due to a back injury. The County moved for summary judgment, arguing Baker failed to file a notice of claim for his state law claim and could not perform the essential functions of his job under the ADA. The District Court, presided by Judge Siragusa, granted the defendant's motion. The New York Human Rights claim was dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the notice of claim requirements. The ADA claim was dismissed because Baker failed to demonstrate he had a "disability" within the meaning of the Act, as his claimed limitations did not substantially restrict a major life activity or show he was regarded as disabled across a broad range of jobs.

Wrongful TerminationAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsNotice of ClaimEmployment LawBack Injury
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Baker sued defendant CSX Transportation, Inc. alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law due to his Hepatitis C infection. Baker claimed CSX failed to accommodate his condition and unlawfully terminated his employment. The defendant denied the claims, asserting accommodation was provided and termination resulted from company-wide downsizing. The court granted in-part and denied in-part defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Baker's federal claims with prejudice as time-barred or for failure to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. The court also declined jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Disability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentHepatitis CEmployment DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Chronic Fatigue FibromyalgiaPrima Facie CaseStatute of Limitations
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 135 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