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. 2024 NYSlipOp 01609 [225 AD3d 520]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Linares v. Massachussetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Jose Linares, an employee of Tolmac Contracting Inc., sustained injuries after falling from stacked compound buckets while performing work in a building owned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MMLI) and Capital Builders Group, Inc. (Capital). Linares moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting that MMLI/Capital failed to provide adequate safety devices. MMLI/Capital and Tolmac sought summary judgment to dismiss various Labor Law and common law negligence claims. The Supreme Court granted Linares's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendants' motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common law negligence claims, while affirming the decision regarding Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyFall AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityLack of Safety DevicesForeman Negligence
References
8
Case No. ADJ7170139, ADJ7176930
Regular
Mar 22, 2017

ROBERT GAONA vs. CAPITAL BUILDERS HARDWARE, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION OF AMERICA

This case involves Robert Gaona's workers' compensation claims against Capital Builders Hardware and their insurers. The Court of Appeal previously annulled its writ of review and remanded the case to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB has now affirmed its prior decision from March 24, 2016, which dismissed the defendants' Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. Therefore, the original Joint Findings and Orders issued by the WCJ on June 5, 2015, stand affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturCourt of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Findings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeAnnulledAffirmedSubstitution of Commissioner
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Gunther v. Capital One, N.A.

Plaintiff Eric Gunther filed a class action against Capital One Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation, alleging improper banking fees. Gunther, a former North Fork Bank customer, became a Capital One Bank account holder after a merger. He claimed Capital One Bank increased fees, including ATM withdrawal and overdraft fees, without proper notice, charged 'Undeliverable Mail Fees,' deceptively marketed 'free checking,' and failed to provide fee schedule notifications. The Court dismissed most of Gunther's breach of contract claims, except for the 'Undeliverable Mail Fees' claim. Claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment were also dismissed. A New York General Business Law § 349 claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The Court denied dismissal for the declaratory judgment claim against Capital One Bank. All claims against Capital One Financial were dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish direct or indirect liability through corporate veil piercing.

Consumer Class ActionBanking FeesBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCorporate Veil PiercingTruth in Savings Act (TISA)Unjust EnrichmentDeclaratory JudgmentStanding to SueNew York General Business Law
References
33
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01560 [159 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Gomes v. Pearson Capital Partners LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiff Atley Gomes partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a December 24, 2012 accident. The court found that the scaffold lacked required safety features (railings, toe boards, cross-bracing, and tie-off points), establishing a statutory violation and proximate cause for plaintiff's fall. The court also affirmed the denial of defendants Pearson Capital Partners LLC and Congress Builders LLC's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, specifically with respect to Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-5.1 (j), citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the scaffold's height. Additionally, the court declined to consider the defendants' hearsay exception arguments as they were raised for the first time on appeal.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentProximate CauseAppellate ReviewHearsay ExceptionIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryWorker Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1997

Reeves Bros., Inc. v. Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp.

Reeves Brothers, Inc. (Reeves) sought confirmation of an arbitration award against Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp. (Capital). Capital cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging inadequate disclosure of relationships between two arbitrators, Norman Hackel and Lawrence H. Bober, and Reeves. The underlying dispute involved unpaid invoices for chemically-treated fabric sold by Reeves to Capital. The arbitration, conducted under the General Arbitration Council of the Textile and Apparel Industries (GAC), resulted in a unanimous award in favor of Reeves. Capital challenged the arbitrators' qualifications during the process, but the GAC denied the applications for disqualification. The court, applying Federal Arbitration Law and the 'evident partiality' standard, found that Capital failed to demonstrate sufficient partiality or prejudice to vacate the award. Therefore, the court granted Reeves' motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied Capital's cross-motion to vacate it.

ArbitrationArbitrator DisclosureEvident PartialityVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCommercial DisputeTextile IndustryUCC 2-207Federal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit
References
18
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00957 [136 AD3d 783]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Sanchez v. Metro Builders Corp.

Juan P. Sanchez initiated a personal injury lawsuit after falling three stories from a roof during snow removal, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against general contractor Metro Builders Corp. and subcontractor JMZ Builders, Inc. Metro, in turn, sought indemnification from JMZ and Sanchez's employers, Cocos Brothers. The Appellate Division ultimately granted Sanchez's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against Metro, finding Metro to be a statutory agent of the owner. Concurrently, Metro's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was granted, while its claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) were denied on the merits. Metro's indemnification claims against JMZ and Cocos Brothers were dismissed as untimely.

Workplace FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment GrantedGeneral ContractorStatutory AgentIndemnification ClaimsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafety Devices
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Matter of Romero v. Capital Concrete

In this Workers' Compensation case, claimant Tunin Romero sustained injuries, leading to a claim for benefits. The employer, Capital Concrete, and its carrier, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, failed to file a First Report of Injury or notice of controversy. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and found the carrier liable. The carrier's application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied for non-compliance with regulatory requirements (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b] [4] [v]). The Board also affirmed the WCLJ's denial of the carrier's request for further development of the record on the employer-employee relationship issue. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to object at the initial hearing and its unexplained absence.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureAdministrative ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipNotice of ControversyFailure to AppearAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewClaim EstablishmentRegulatory Compliance
References
6
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03158 [238 AD3d 635]
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2025

Matter of Jefferies LLC v. IsZo Capital LP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment confirming an arbitration award of $1,045,250 in favor of Jefferies LLC against IsZo Capital LP. IsZo Capital sought to vacate the award, arguing that arbitrators exceeded their power by violating federal bankruptcy court orders confirming Chapter 11 reorganization plans and that the award was preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. The court rejected this, finding 11 USC § 1141 (a) inapplicable as neither party was bound by its provisions. The court also rejected IsZo Capital's claim that the arbitration panel's order to remove website materials constituted a prior restraint on free speech, as it enforced a contractual agreement prohibiting the use of Jefferies LLC's name or logo without consent. The court concluded that enforcing such agreements does not violate public policy against prior restraint. Furthermore, IsZo Capital's challenge to the legal fee award was not preserved for appellate review.

Arbitration AwardVacatur of AwardArbitrator's PowersFederal Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 Reorganization PlansPreemptionFirst Amendment RightsPrior RestraintContractual AgreementsLegal Fees
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 24,574 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