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. 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

Clarke v. LR SYSTEMS

Walter Clarke, a 74-year-old former employee of Favorite Plastics, Inc., filed a products liability action against LR Systems and Lasits Rohline Service, Inc. for injuries sustained in an industrial accident on August 13, 1996. Clarke's right hand was pulled into an SG Granulator 300 machine, resulting in the loss of part of his thumb and injury to three fingers. He alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty, claiming inadequate warnings and a design defect in the grinder. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, finding Clarke was aware of the danger. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied on the defective design claims, ruling that the expert testimony regarding the feasibility of an interlocked guard was admissible.

Products LiabilityIndustrial AccidentGranulator MachineDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyNip Point HazardV-belt DriveMachine Safety
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Clarke v. One Source Facility Services, Inc.

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint
References
21
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05131 [186 AD3d 1149]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2020

Matter of Clarke v. City of New York

Petitioner Adrianne Clarke sought to annul the New York City Transit Authority's (NYCTA) decision to deny her differential pay following a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) injury sustained during a work-related flight. The NYCTA denied the request, citing Clarke's late notification of the injury and the uncertainty surrounding whether her travel constituted a "workplace activity" for differential pay eligibility. The Supreme Court upheld the NYCTA's decision as rationally based, noting that traveling to work is generally not considered a workplace activity and Clarke had a personal history of DVT. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of differential pay.

Differential PayDeep Vein ThrombosisWorkplace InjuryTimely NoticeAssigned DutyTravel TimeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewRational BasisWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
2
Case No. CA 15-00615
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2016

ALATI, ANTHONY JOSEPH v. DIVIN BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Anthony Joseph Alati sued Divin Builders, Inc. and Michael Friery for injuries sustained from a ladder fall during construction. The causes of action included common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment and denied Divin Builders' cross-motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting parts of Divin Builders' cross-motion to dismiss plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) causes of action, except for specific NYCRR violations under 241(6), and affirmed the remaining parts of the order.

Ladder AccidentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyIndependent ContractorSupervisory ControlStatutory Violation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

Alati v. Divin Builders, Inc.

Plaintiff, an independent contractor, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while installing a light fixture in a residence built by defendant Divin Builders, Inc. Plaintiff initiated a common-law negligence and Labor Law action, alleging violations of sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied the defendant's cross-motion for dismissal. On appeal, the higher court modified the order, granting Divin Builders, Inc.'s cross-motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. Additionally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed, except for those parts based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (1) and (3) (iv). The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to grant plaintiff partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Ladder FallConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentNegligenceWorkplace SafetyIndependent ContractorAppellate ReviewStatutory ViolationPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03894
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Olivera-Perez v. B.A.M. Bldrs., Inc.

Macario Olivera-Perez sustained personal injuries during construction work. The Workers' Compensation Board determined Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, was his employer and awarded benefits. Olivera-Perez then filed a personal injury action against Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, and others. Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the Workers' Compensation Law provides an exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court denied this, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, granting the dismissal of the complaint against Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, based on the Workers' Compensation Board's prior finding and the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court also converted cross-claims against Builders Joseph and Sons, LLC, into third-party causes of action.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityEmployer-Employee RelationshipMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentSupreme Court Order ModifiedCross-Claims ConversionJudicial DiscretionDocumentary Evidence
References
20
Case No. ADJ11276421
Regular
Mar 15, 2019

SABAS GAMBOA vs. FULLERTON PACIFIC INTERIORS, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order dismissing defendant Clark Builders and others, arguing it was improper as Clark Builders was not a party. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely and from a non-final order. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion to correct the record, as Clark Builders was never properly a party. The Board rescinded the original dismissal order and issued a new order dismissing Arch Indemnity Insurance Company and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. without prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalOrder DismissingLack of EmploymentClark BuildersArch Indemnity Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.Fullerton Pacific Interiors
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Clarke

The case involves the appeal of Brian Clarke's conviction for felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The initial judgment sentenced him to 25 years to life for murder in the second degree. On appeal, the court found that the defendant received meaningful representation and the motion to vacate judgment was properly denied. However, the appellate court, exercising discretion in the interest of justice, reduced the sentence for murder in the second degree to a term of 15 years to life. This modification was based on factors such as it being the defendant's first offense, his below-average intelligence, and the jury's conviction solely on the felony-murder count. A dissenting opinion argued against the sentence reduction, highlighting the brutal nature of the crime—a cold-blooded execution during a robbery—and the defendant's background as an admitted drug dealer.

Criminal LawFelony MurderRobberyCriminal Possession of WeaponSentence ReductionAppellate ReviewProsecutorial MisconductSuppression MotionMeaningful RepresentationMental Capacity
References
9
Case No. 93-CV-1524
Regular Panel Decision

Clarke v. TRW, INC.

This case involves a whistleblower lawsuit filed by four former employees—Peter J. Clarke, Edward J. Dixon, Brian R. Fisher, and Paul J. Wheeler—against their former employer, TRW, Inc. The plaintiffs allege retaliation under New York's whistleblower law (N.Y.Lab.Law § 740) for reporting safety concerns related to defective automobile parts manufactured by TRW, specifically the Carter RFI Module and Ford ISO Relay. The alleged defects, which included improper testing and manufacturing flaws, presented a substantial danger of vehicle fires and loss of brake control. The court, addressing TRW's motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' cross-motion to file a second amended complaint, ruled that the plaintiffs' claims based on violations of 49 U.S.C. §§ 30116 and 30118 were sufficiently pleaded to proceed. However, claims relying on 49 C.F.R. §§ 571.105, 571.301, and 49 U.S.C. §§ 30112, 30115, 30122 were dismissed as these regulations apply to finished vehicles, not component parts. The court also denied the plaintiffs' requests for punitive damages and a jury trial, citing that these are not available remedies under N.Y.Lab.Law § 740(5). Ultimately, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiffs were granted partial leave to amend their complaint within 45 days.

WhistleblowerRetaliationMotor Vehicle SafetyProduct LiabilityManufacturing DefectsComponent PartsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissMotion to AmendNTMVSA
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 266 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