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. ADJ9376633, ADJ9378451
Regular
Oct 29, 2018

MARIA GONZALEZ vs. CRST VAN EX/CEDAR RAPIDS, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Maria Gonzalez and defendants CRST Van Ex/Cedar Rapids and New Hampshire Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision from August 13, 2018. The Board rescinded that decision and returned the matter to the workers' compensation administrative law judge for further proceedings and a new decision. This order is procedural and does not address the merits of the case.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportgrant reconsiderationrescind decisionfurther proceedingsDecision After Reconsiderationtrial leveladministrative law judgeADJ9376633
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01314 [180 AD3d 969]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2020

Alexandridis v. Van Gogh Contr. Co.

Theodoros Alexandridis, an injured plaintiff, brought an action against Van Gogh Contracting Company, Van Gogh Painting Corp., Van Gogh Construction Corp. (collectively Van Gogh defendants), and Christopher Meskouris and Filantey Meskouris (collectively Meskouris defendants) after sustaining injuries from a ladder fall at the Meskouris defendants' home. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, denying the Van Gogh defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims due to triable issues of fact regarding their contractor status and control over the worksite. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Meskouris defendants on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, citing their failure to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition. It also affirmed the Meskouris defendants' summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) based on the homeowner's exemption.

Personal injuryLadder accidentConstructionHomeowner's exemptionLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentTriable issues of fact
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Deusen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Petitioners Duane and Barbara Van Deusen appealed the denial of their request for apportionment of attorney's fees against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G). USF&G was the workers' compensation and liability insurer for Duane's employer, Goettle, and its lien was satisfied from the Van Deusens' third-party award for personal injuries. Special Term had denied the apportionment based on the precedent set in *France v Abstract Tit. Div. of Tit. Guar. Co.*, which held that when the lienor is also the employer's liability insurer, the attorney's efforts are considered adverse, extinguishing the contribution obligation. This court reconsidered the *France* ruling, deeming it unfair to injured plaintiffs and contrary to the legislative intent behind the Workers' Compensation Law amendment regarding lienor contribution to litigation costs. The court found no legal or logical reason to differentiate an injured employee's recovery based on whether the employer's compensation and liability insurance were with one or two carriers. Consequently, the court reversed the Special Term's order and remitted the matter for further proceedings, instructing that litigation costs be calculated based on the direct benefit the lienor received from the recovery through lien recoupment, with an additional consideration for any wrongfully withheld compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney's Fees ApportionmentInsurance LienThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityIndemnificationContributionDole-Dow DoctrineAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent Reconsideration
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06161
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2022

Cotroneo v. Van Wagner Sign Erectors, LLC

Plaintiff Cosmo Cotroneo appealed an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the falling gang box lid was a routine workplace risk and not a material requiring hoisting or securing under the statute. However, the court modified the order to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding that missing struts on the gang box constituted a liability as they were safety devices. The defendants' arguments regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence for damaging the struts were found to be speculative. Additionally, the court confirmed that the Van Wagner/Outfront defendants were proper Labor Law defendants, acting as general contractors and agents of the owner.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionGravity-Related RiskGang BoxSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceOwner's AgentGeneral Contractor
References
11
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1997

Sidor v. Zuhoski

This case involves appeals from an order concerning two related actions: one for personal injuries (Action No. 1) and another for wrongful death (Action No. 2). Joseph and Gregory Zuhoski appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1. Separately, Colin Van Tuyl, as Executor of the Estate of Janet A. Van Tuyl, and Brianna and Colin Van Tuyl, individually, appealed both the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion and the granting of Martin Sidor & Sons, Inc.'s motion to amend its answer in Action No. 2. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, noting the trial court's sound discretion in granting leave to amend pleadings, particularly when the failure to deny allegations was an inadvertent mistake. Furthermore, the court found an issue of fact regarding Gregory Zuhoski's employment status at the time of the accident, which justified the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppealPleading AmendmentDiscretion of Trial CourtWorkers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentAppellate DivisionSuffolk County Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Van Teslaar

Claimant Van Teslaar attended a vocational training course and received a significant living allowance from an employer-union trust fund. The Industrial Commissioner denied unemployment benefits for this period, considering the allowance a relevant factor under Labor Law § 599. After conflicting decisions from a referee and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, the Appellate Division reversed, upholding the Commissioner's stance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, ruling that receiving employer-financed funds is a valid 'relevant factor' for benefit eligibility under Labor Law § 599. The court also held that, given the substantial amount of funds received, approving the training course would constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.

Unemployment InsuranceVocational TrainingLabor LawStatutory ConstructionJudicial ReviewAdministrative DiscretionEligibility CriteriaEmployer-Financed BenefitsRelevant FactorCourt of Appeals
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04056 [195 AD3d 1307]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

People v. Van Alphen

Defendant Goliath Van Alphen appealed his conviction for predatory sexual assault against a child and other related crimes. He contended that the District Attorney should have been disqualified due to prior judicial involvement in his family matters, but the court found no conflict as the previous cases involved different legal issues. Defendant also challenged the grand jury's extension and the reception of sworn testimony from child witnesses, but both arguments were rejected. The court further determined that a medical report was properly admitted as relevant to diagnosis and treatment, and any judicial comments were cured by instructions. The Appellate Division ultimately affirmed the judgment of conviction.

Criminal LawSexual AssaultChild AbuseAppellate ReviewJudicial DisqualificationGrand Jury ProcedureUnsworn TestimonyHearsay EvidenceCurative InstructionEvidentiary Rules
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Hoesen v. F & M Schaefer Brewing Co.

On summary consideration, the court reversed a prior order and reinstated the order of Supreme Court, Fulton County. The reinstated order approved a settlement that included an equitable apportionment of attorney's fees. This order explicitly mandates Lumbermens to pay plaintiff Kenneth Van Hoesen an amount equivalent to one-third of the total value of his workers' compensation claim. The workers' compensation claim was computed by the board to be $14,460.80. Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, and Meyer concurred with the decision.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesSettlementEquitable ApportionmentSummary ConsiderationCourt Order ReinstatementFulton CountyLumbermens
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jock v. Fien

Plaintiff Amos Jock was injured while fabricating a concrete septic tank at his workplace, falling from a steel mold. He, along with his wife, sued his employer Richard Van Petty, Van Petty Excavating, Inc., and building owner Donald L. Fien, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, finding issues of fact, but the Appellate Court disagreed. The Appellate Court held that Mr. Jock was engaged in a normal manufacturing process, not protected building construction or related activities under the cited Labor Law sections. Consequently, his causes of action were dismissed, and the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentBuilding ConstructionManufacturing ProcessSeptic Tank FabricationWorker ProtectionAppellate ReviewScope of Employment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2000

Van Eken v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Joseph Van Eken, an employee of Roadway Contracting Incorporated (RCI), was injured in an excavation trench while working for Consolidated Edison Company of New York (Con Ed). The injury occurred when a jackhammer struck Van Eken after a co-worker released it to deflect a falling plywood sheet, which was being lowered without proper safety devices. Van Eken and other plaintiffs sued Con Ed, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1); Con Ed subsequently impleaded RCI. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and granted RCI's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that Van Eken was exposed to an elevation-related hazard and that the absence of safety devices was a proximate cause of the accident, thereby granting the plaintiffs' motion and denying RCI's.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction Site SafetyWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment AppealThird-Party LiabilityElevation HazardProximate CauseFalling ObjectsAppellate Reversal
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 501 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