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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00297 [212 AD3d 763]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2023

Calle v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a laborer at a construction site, sustained personal injuries after falling into an excavation. He commenced an action against the City of New York, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the City's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the City's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, as he used a wooden cross brace not intended as a walkway instead of provided ladders. Additionally, the court determined that the cited Labor Law regulations were inapplicable or not violated, and the City neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition, thus dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Sole Proximate CauseSummary Judgment GrantAppellate DivisionDangerous ConditionWorker Safety
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1991

In re Lenny McN.

The Family Court in Bronx County issued an order on November 18, 1991, directing the disclosure of a social worker's entire casework file to an intervenor-respondent. This social worker was called as a witness by the law guardian for the infants. The appellate court unanimously reversed this order, finding the social worker's testimony regarding prior file use too equivocal to support a wholesale waiver of confidentiality and work product privileges. The court emphasized the protection against disclosure of mental impressions of a party's representative, classifying a social worker employed by a law guardian as such a representative. The case was remanded for a continuation of the dispositional hearing, with further discovery limited unless the law guardian seeks to elicit an adverse expert opinion from the social worker.

Family LawDisclosureConfidentiality PrivilegeWork Product ImmunitySocial Worker TestimonyChild CustodyFamily Court ProceedingDiscovery LimitationsAppellate ReviewWaiver of Privilege
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2012

Claim of Mosley v. Hannaford Bros.

In November 2007, a claimant working as an assistant store manager made a work-related phone call to a coworker's home. This call led the coworker's husband to believe claimant and the coworker were in a romantic relationship, resulting in a campaign of harassment against the claimant, including an unsuccessful murder-for-hire plot. The harassment, an internal employer investigation, and claimant's subsequent transfer request exacerbated his preexisting posttraumatic stress disorder, rendering him unable to work. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a ruling that the claimant's injury was work-related, finding a sufficient nexus between the work-related phone call and the subsequent threatening conduct that worsened his condition. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with costs awarded to the claimant.

Work-related injuryMental healthPTSDHarassmentWorkers' compensationEmploymentCausationNexusAppealAssistant store manager
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gale

In a child abuse proceeding, the respondent father is accused of abusing his 3.5-year-old daughter. The petitioner, Commissioner of Social Services, presented hearsay testimony and a child psychiatrist's validation. The nonrespondent mother, who possesses relevant testimony regarding the child's behavior and physical condition, was not called by the Commissioner, who aimed to reserve her as a rebuttal witness. The court, presided over by Jeffry H. Gallet, J., addressed whether it could *sua sponte* order the Commissioner to call a witness under their control. Citing public policy considerations in child protective proceedings to ensure all evidence is before the court and acknowledging the grave potential consequences of an incorrect finding, the court determined it has an affirmative duty to ensure a full and complete presentation of all evidence. Consequently, the court ordered the Commissioner to call the mother as a witness.

Child AbuseWitness TestimonyCourt's AuthorityJudicial DiscretionFamily Court ActPublic PolicyBest Interests of the ChildEvidentiary RulesTrial TacticsChild Protective Proceedings
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2013

O'Neill v. Mermaid Touring Inc.

Plaintiff Jennifer O’Neill, a former personal assistant to Stefani Germanotta (Lady Gaga) and Mermaid Touring, Inc., sued for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York’s Labor Law. O'Neill alleged she worked "24/7" on-call for a fixed salary without overtime pay. Defendants sought summary judgment on whether O'Neill was entitled to overtime for work performed outside New York, if her "on-call" time was compensable, and the method for calculating any due overtime. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on the New York Labor Law claim for out-of-state work, but denied it regarding the compensability of "on-call" time and the method of overtime calculation due to unresolved factual disputes. Additionally, the Third Cause of Action was dismissed by consent.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawPersonal AssistantLady GagaOn-call TimeSummary Judgment MotionWage ClaimEmployee Misclassification
References
39
Case No. 2026 NY Slip Op 00962
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Beadell v. Eros Mgt. Realty LLC

This case concerns the liability of a hotel (Eros Management Realty, LLC and Tryp Management Inc.) for the suicide of a guest, Dr. Noah Beadell, who jumped from his 11th-floor room. His family, aware of his suicidal ideation, contacted the hotel multiple times, requesting staff to check on him and, later, to immediately call 911 for emergency intervention. Although hotel staff checked on the guest and eventually called 911, there was a significant delay (25 minutes) after the family's urgent request for police intervention. The plaintiffs, the decedent's mother and wife, argued the hotel assumed a duty to act with due care and breached it, leading to a lost opportunity to prevent the suicide. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the hotel did not assume a duty to prevent the suicide under the circumstances, and that the plaintiffs' reliance on the hotel's promise to call 911 was not reasonably foreseeable to establish an assumed duty.

SuicideNegligenceAssumed DutyHotel LiabilityWrongful DeathProximate CauseForeseeabilityMental Health CrisisEmergency InterventionDelayed Response
References
36
Case No. ADJ2671394 (STK 0163239)
Regular
Sep 13, 2010

COTTAGE BAKERY vs. MCDONALD

The WCAB denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order regarding calling an expert witness was not a final order. However, the Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's previous order. This action was based on the finding that Evidence Code section 776 does not permit an applicant to call an opposing party's expert witness during their case-in-chief. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalEvidence Code section 776adverse witnessexpert witnessfinal orderinterlocutory orderdiscoveryvocational rehabilitation expert
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 1985

Claim of Vinciguerra v. Carvel Corp.

This case addresses whether a claimant was a special employee of Carvel Corporation. The claimant was injured while delivering a cake for Carvel's Call-a-Cake Enterprise, having been asked to do so by another employee before officially starting his shift at a Carvel store. The Workers' Compensation Board found the claimant to be a special employee of Carvel. Carvel appealed, arguing they lacked control over the delivery details. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that Call-a-Cake was responsible for payment and that delivery was an essential part of its business, thus supporting the special employment finding.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeEmployment RelationshipControl TestMethod of PaymentFurnishing EquipmentRight to DischargeRelative Nature of the WorkDelivery ServicesBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ6778298
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

STEPHANIE KOENIG vs. AT&T MOBILITY, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a petition for removal regarding an applicant's ex parte communication with a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) after her psychiatric examination. The defendant argued the applicant's phone call, seeking advice for obsessive thoughts, violated Labor Code section 4062.3, which prohibits ex parte communications with QMEs. The Board majority found the communication was "in the course of the examination" due to its proximity in time and subject matter to the evaluation, thus denying the petition. A dissenting opinion argued the call, initiated six weeks post-examination for emergency advice, fell outside the statutory exceptions.

QMEex parte communicationLabor Code section 4062.3in the course of examinationindustrial injurypsyche injuryqualified medical evaluatorpetition for removalAppeals Boarddissenting opinion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Managers of the 1235 Park Condominium v. Clermont Specialty Managers, Ltd.

The case concerns an insured's argument to excuse an untimely notice of a worker's accident to its insurer. A worker fell off a ladder while installing a water tank and was taken to the hospital. The insured claimed a good faith belief that no claim would be asserted, based on a phone call to the worker's employer who stated the worker was not seriously injured and would return to work. The court denied this argument, ruling that a single phone call was insufficient inquiry given the severity of the accident. Additionally, the court found that a recent amendment to Insurance Law § 3420 (a)(5), requiring a showing of prejudice for untimely notice, does not apply retroactively to a 2003 policy.

Untimely NoticeInsurance CoveragePrejudiceLadder AccidentDuty to InquireRetroactive ApplicationGood Faith BeliefWorker InjuryPolicy InvolvementAppellate Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 173 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