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
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Derrickmen & Riggers Assoc. Local Union No. 197 of the International Ass'n of Bridge v. Local No. 1 Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman

This action was initiated by Local 197 against Local 1, alleging breach of contract based on violations of the Constitutions of the Building and Construction Trades Department (BCTD) and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York (BCTC), as well as their respective jurisdictional dispute resolution plans. Local 197 sought partial summary judgment to compel Local 1 to honor its contractual obligations and to rejoin the BCTC, from which Local 1 had withdrawn. Conversely, Local 1 sought summary judgment to dismiss the entire suit, arguing that Local 197 lacked standing as a third-party beneficiary and that the state law tort claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that Local 197 was an incidental, not intended, beneficiary of the BCTD Constitution and National Plan, and that Local 1's disaffiliation from the BCTC removed its obligations to the New York Plan. Additionally, the court ruled that Local 197's state law claims for tortious interference were preempted by the NLRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.

Labor LawJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party BeneficiaryNLRA PreemptionUnion AffiliationCollective BargainingAFL-CIO ConstitutionLocal Union Rights
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpino v. National Store Fixtures, Inc.

Plaintiff Louis P. Carpiño was injured in a fall at his employer's warehouse and, along with his wife, sued general contractors. An amended complaint added Conner Industries, Inc., the supplier of the allegedly defective wood, alleging products liability. Conner moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, finding plaintiffs failed to establish minimal contacts between Conner, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, and New York. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that Conner lacked sufficient minimum contacts with New York to subject it to the state's jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (1) or CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii), thus upholding the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

personal jurisdictionlong-arm jurisdictionminimum contactsdue processforeign corporationproducts liabilityLabor Lawinterstate commercetortious actappellate review
References
14
Case No. 08-23-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

A-1 Freeman Moving & Storage LLC and A-1 Freeman North America Inc. v. Araceli Ortiz Galindo

Araceli Ortiz Galindo, an employee of A-1 Freeman Moving & Storage, LLC, filed a negligence claim against her employer and A-1 Freeman North America Inc. after a workplace accident. The A-1 Freeman entities sought to compel arbitration based on a 'Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate' (MAA) and several signed acknowledgments. Galindo opposed, arguing the MAA was illusory, she never received a copy, and one acknowledgment was signed under duress. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration without specifying reasons. The appellate court found the MAA was not illusory due to a savings clause. It concluded Galindo received unequivocal notice of the mandatory arbitration plan with A-1 Freeman Moving & Storage, LLC through a signed Notice of Employment Application, and thus erred in denying arbitration for this entity. However, the court affirmed the denial of arbitration for A-1 Freeman North America Inc., as no evidence supported its inclusion in the arbitration agreement or its status as a 'related company' to compel arbitration as a non-signatory. The case is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementInterlocutory AppealMotion to Compel ArbitrationNegligence ClaimWorkplace AccidentIllusory ContractSavings ClauseUnequivocal NoticeEmployment ArbitrationNon-Signatory
References
36
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01255 [158 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2018

Pena v. Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust No. 1

Juan Pena, an injured worker, sued Jane H. Goldman Residuary Trust Number 1 and Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) under Labor Law § 240 (1) after sustaining injuries from a fall off an unsecured and wobbling ladder. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Pena partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against SGI. SGI appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that Pena's deposition testimony sufficiently established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that SGI failed to raise a triable issue of fact, particularly regarding the provision of adequate safety devices or whether Pena was the sole proximate cause of the accident.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder accidentUnsecured ladderFall from heightConstruction site accidentAppellate decisionPrima facie caseTriable issue of factProximate cause
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2005

Beharry v. Public Storage, Inc.

The plaintiff, Deonarine Beharry, an iron worker, sustained injuries after falling through metal decking while ascending unfinished stairs at a construction site. He sued the property owners, Public Storage, Inc. and PSAC Development Partners, LP, and the general contractor, Racanelli Construction Company, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability. The defendants appealed, arguing the metal decking was not a safety device and the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the metal decking served as a functional equivalent of a ladder under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawScaffold LawLiabilityMetal DeckingSafety DeviceProximate CauseAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
10
Case No. Index No. 113954/01; Index No. 120136/00; Index No. 120594/00; Index No. 119824/01
Regular Panel Decision

Tancredi v. ACandS, Inc.

This case addresses a critical issue about judgment molding in asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits, specifically concerning whether a solvent tortfeasor whose fault is less than 50% must absorb the liability for noneconomic losses of a bankrupt tortfeasor under CPLR article 16. The central question is the interpretation of 'unable to obtain jurisdiction' in CPLR 1601 (1) when a tortfeasor files for bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay. The court, rejecting previous federal court interpretations and aligning with recent New York State case law, declares that 'jurisdiction' in CPLR 1601 (1) and CPLR 1602 (10) refers to personal jurisdiction. Consequently, the culpability of a bankrupt tortfeasor will be included in calculating the defendant tortfeasors’ exposure unless the plaintiff can prove inability to obtain personal jurisdiction with due diligence, or if a CPLR 1602 exemption applies.

Asbestos LitigationJoint and Several LiabilityCPLR Article 16Personal JurisdictionBankruptcy StayTortfeasor LiabilityNoneconomic DamagesStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentConsolidated Motions
References
27
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. 01-17-00516-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2017

$1,941.00 US Currency v. State

The order addresses an appeal where appellant Mark Allen Oliver, incarcerated and claiming indigence, has not arranged to pay for the reporter’s record. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas at Houston instructs the appellant on the proper procedure for proceeding without paying appeal costs. According to TEX. R. CIV. P. 45 and TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1, the appellant must file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs in the trial court. The appellant is ordered to file this form within 14 days and request the trial court clerk to prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the Statement of Inability form.

IndigencyCourt CostsAppeal CostsStatement of InabilityAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureIncarcerated LitigantTexas Court of AppealsRules of Civil ProcedureRules of Appellate Procedure
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,716 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