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

Young v. Central Square Central School District

Plaintiff sued Central Square Central School District under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination due to her multiple sclerosis diagnosis and the District's failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel from a prior administrative hearing that found Plaintiff unfit to teach, and also sought to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel. The Court denied the summary judgment motion, ruling that collateral estoppel did not bar the litigation of reasonable accommodation issues. However, the motion to disqualify Plaintiff's law firm, O'Hara & O'Connell, was granted because an associate had previously worked on the District's defense in related matters, creating an appearance of impropriety. Consequently, Plaintiff must secure new legal representation or proceed pro se within ninety days.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActReasonable AccommodationMultiple SclerosisEmployment DiscriminationCollateral EstoppelAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestSummary JudgmentTeacher Disability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regensdorfer v. Central Buffalo Project Corp.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Central Buffalo Project Corporation and third-party defendant United States Shoe Corporation, doing business as Casual Corner, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. An out-of-possession landlord, Central Buffalo, was not liable as it relinquished control, was not contractually obligated to repair nonstructural defects, and did not have notice of the condition. The loose stairway treads were deemed a non-structural defect. Additionally, Casual Corner was contractually obligated to indemnify Central Buffalo. The amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, effective September 10, 1996, was deemed prospective only and not applicable to this action.

Landlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawStructural DefectNotice of DefectAppellate ReviewOut-of-Possession LandlordLease Agreement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Greenburgh Central School District Number 7

Lawson, a school bus driver for Shore Transportation Co., was dismissed after the Central School District alleged erratic driving and demanded his removal. Shore had a contract with the district giving the latter approval rights over drivers. Lawson initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, converted to a declaratory judgment action, to annul his dismissal and compel the appellants (Central School District and Shore) to grant an evidentiary hearing. The appellants' motion to dismiss was denied. The court affirmed the denial, ruling that the school district's substantial contractual and statutory control over driver employment, even without direct employment, could entitle Lawson to procedural due process protections, thus stating a valid cause of action for a hearing.

Procedural Due ProcessEmployment TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78School Bus DriverContractual ControlEvidentiary HearingAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstitutional Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bombard v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company and Mid-Hudson Auto Wreckers, Inc., thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff, Bombard, had previously alleged a breach of common-law duty to provide a safe workplace and sought to amend the complaint to include a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that there was no new evidence to support Central Hudson's supervision or control over the plaintiff's work, a prerequisite for the safe workplace claim. Similarly, Mid-Hudson was found not to have exercised sufficient supervision, and the danger posed by power lines was deemed readily observable, negating a duty to protect from obvious hazards. Furthermore, the court denied the motion to amend the complaint, ruling that the work of removing cars from a junkyard did not fall within the scope of 'construction, excavation or demolition' as required by Labor Law § 241 (6).

Summary judgmentLabor LawWorkplace safetySupervision and controlObvious dangerAppellate reviewCommon-law dutyNegligenceStatutory interpretationJunkyard accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1989

Hartley v. Concrete

The plaintiffs, including Donald Hartley, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that denied their motion for partial summary judgment on liability against defendants Spartan Concrete, Paul Schmergel & Son, and Seymar Associates d/b/a Seagull Associates. Donald Hartley, an iron-worker, was injured when wood decking collapsed at a construction site. The plaintiffs argued a violation of Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court denied the motion, stating that while a Labor Law violation was established, proximate cause was not demonstrated. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding no triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and ruling that the collapse of the unsafe elevated structure itself constituted the proximate cause of the injury, imposing absolute liability on the defendants under Labor Law § 240. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentElevated Work SiteScaffolding LawAppellate ReviewWorker Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richane v. Fairport Central School District

Plaintiff Robert Richane sued Fairport Central School District, alleging age discrimination in hiring under the ADEA and HRL after not being offered a teaching position. Fairport moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision. The court, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, found that while Richane established a prima facie case, he failed to demonstrate that Fairport's reasons (better-qualified candidates, poor interview performance) were a pretext for age discrimination. The court granted Fairport's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Richane's complaint with prejudice, also rejecting his unproven pattern and practice discrimination claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentPretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkHuman Rights LawADEAHiring PracticesTeacher EmploymentFederal Civil Procedure
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weathers v. Millbrook Central School District

Plaintiff Patricia Weathers, on behalf of her minor son Michael M., initiated an action against various defendants, including the Millbrook Central School District, school officials, doctors Lynne Liptay and Julia Speicher, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), alleging claims related to Michael's prescription of Ritalin and Paxil for attention deficit and social anxiety disorders. Earlier claims against the school defendants and a psychologist were dismissed. The doctor defendants moved to dismiss the remaining medical malpractice claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these state law claims, as the federal claims (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) that established original jurisdiction had already been dismissed with prejudice. Consequently, the medical malpractice claims against the doctor defendants were dismissed without prejudice, while claims against GSK were retained under diversity jurisdiction.

JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionMedical MalpracticeFederal QuestionDiversity JurisdictionDismissal Without PrejudiceRule 12(b)(1)Products LiabilityNegligenceAttention Deficit Disorder
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lavigne v. Peru Central School District

The claimant, a teaching assistant for Peru Central School District, was injured after a fall in 2003. She subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits in 2005, which was beyond the two-year statutory period. A workers' compensation law judge initially found that the employer's provision of medical treatment waived the filing requirement. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision and disallowed the claim as untimely. The court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the first aid provided by the principal and school nurse was not an acknowledgment of employer liability, and therefore, did not waive the time bar under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28.

Workers' Compensation LawTimeliness of ClaimAdvance Payment of CompensationMedical Treatment WaiverEmployer LiabilityFirst AidStatute of LimitationsBoard ReviewAffirmed DecisionClaim Disallowance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2000

Stein v. Beaver Concrete Breaking Co.

Stuart Stein appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to Beaver Concrete Breaking Co., Inc., dismissing his personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, citing that a person can have both a general and special employer for Workers' Compensation Law purposes. Since Stein received workers' compensation benefits from his special employer, JAB Construction, Inc., and Beaver was determined to be his general employer, Beaver was shielded from the lawsuit under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 10, 11, and 29 [6].

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTort LawNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goff v. Whitehall Central School District

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement between the Whitehall Central School District and its employees. The dispute centers on whether "snow days" should be included in the calculation of guaranteed minimum payment days for part-time bus drivers (180 days) and cafeteria employees (170 days), even if the employees have already met those minimums through other workdays. The school district denied a grievance, arguing that snow days only count if needed to reach the minimum. Special Term initially reversed the board's decision, asserting that snow days should always be included. However, this appellate court reversed Special Term's judgment, ruling that the contract's intent was to count snow days only when necessary to fulfill the assured minimum number of payment days, and not to provide additional payment once the minimum was achieved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSnow DaysEmployment ContractWage DisputeSchool DistrictArticle 78 ProceedingContract InterpretationGrievanceAppellate ReviewEmployee Rights
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 964 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