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
Apr 03, 1986

Soto v. City of New York

Wilfredo Soto, an epileptic, participated in the Public Works Program in conjunction with the New York City Department of Social Services, working for the Department of Transportation. In May 1979, he suffered a seizure on a work bus, fell out, and sustained a fractured spine, rendering him paraplegic. Soto appealed a judgment, claiming errors in jury instructions regarding comparative fault, where he was found 70% at fault and the City of New York 30%. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the jury instructions on comparative fault were proper and Soto's remaining contentions were without merit. The City of New York's cross-appeal for dismissal of Soto's cause of action was also denied.

Personal InjuryComparative FaultJury InstructionsParaplegiaEpilepsyPublic Works ProgramNegligenceAppellate ReviewKings CountyNew York City
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mullen v. Zoebe, Inc.

A New York City firefighter, Mullen, sustained a serious back injury while responding to a fire at Zoebe Inc.'s building, which had multiple fire and safety code violations. Mullen sued under General Municipal Law § 205-a, seeking damages. The core legal question was whether comparative fault, as outlined in CPLR article 14-A, could be applied to diminish a firefighter's recovery in such an action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that comparative fault is incompatible with and undermines the protective intent of General Municipal Law § 205-a. This statute aims to place entire responsibility for injuries arising from safety violations on property owners, thereby protecting firefighters from additional, unavoidable hazards and ensuring full recovery.

Firefighter RuleGeneral Municipal Law § 205-aComparative FaultContributory NegligenceAssumption of RiskStatutory LiabilityPremises LiabilitySafety ViolationsProperty OwnersWorkers' Injury
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01955
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2023

Fischer v. VNO 225 W. 58th St. LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a worker's fall from an elevated plywood platform. The Supreme Court initially made several rulings regarding Labor Law claims under sections 240 (1) and 241 (6), and an affirmative defense of comparative fault. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b) (2), stating the platform was not exclusively for persons. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to an insufficient height differential, and also affirmed the denial of the § 241 (6) claim under § 23-5.1, as the platform was not a functional scaffold. Lastly, the dismissal of defendants' comparative fault defense was affirmed as it was unopposed.

Elevated platform fallSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1) claimLabor Law § 241 (6) claimIndustrial Code § 23-1.22 (b) (2)Industrial Code § 23-5.1Runway or ramp definitionScaffold functional equivalentHeight differentialComparative fault defense
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00221
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2024

Bradley v. NYU Langone Hosps.

Plaintiff Nacorra Bradley sued NYU Langone Hospitals and Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC for injuries sustained after slipping on a wet staircase at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) and dismissing comparative fault. It also granted third-party defendant ASR Electrical Contracting, Inc.'s motion to dismiss NYU Langone's contractual indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified the order: denying ASR's motion for summary judgment dismissing NYU Langone's contractual indemnification claim and granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss the comparative fault affirmative defense. The court otherwise affirmed the initial decision, finding that defendants failed to demonstrate dismissal of negligence and Labor Law claims and that triable issues of fact remained regarding Hunter's negligence.

Summary judgmentNegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d)Slippery conditionConstruction site accidentStaircase safetyContractual indemnificationComparative fault
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Williams

Amoco Oil appealed two judgments from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning arbitration for uninsured motorist and no-fault benefits. The first judgment, dated January 6, 1977, granted New Hampshire Insurance Company's application to stay arbitration, deeming Amoco Oil's coverage primary and New Hampshire's secondary for uninsured motorist benefits. The second judgment, dated March 30, 1977, permanently stayed arbitration for no-fault benefits under New Hampshire's policy. The Appellate Division affirmed both judgments, concluding that the claimant was "occupying" the Amoco Oil vehicle, making Amoco Oil primarily liable for uninsured motorist benefits. However, the claimant was precluded from receiving these benefits due to already receiving workers' compensation benefits in excess of the maximum, and was also ineligible for no-fault benefits under the New Hampshire policy.

Insurance DisputeArbitration ProceedingsUninsured Motorist CoverageNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' CompensationPrimary vs Secondary LiabilityAppellate DivisionNassau County Supreme CourtVehicle OccupancyBenefit Eligibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1999

Bauer v. Female Academy of Sacred Heart

Plaintiff, an employee of ESS, sustained serious injuries after falling while cleaning windows of a building owned by the defendant. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, and 240 (1). After an earlier appeal dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the case proceeded to trial on the Labor Law § 202 claim. The Supreme Court instructed the jury that defendant and ESS were liable due to a breach of their statutory duty under Labor Law § 202, considering it an absolute liability statute and not allowing comparative fault. The jury returned a verdict of $3,351,933 in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant and ESS appealed, contending that Labor Law § 202, as amended in 1970, does not impose absolute liability but rather a violation of regulations under it constitutes some evidence of negligence, thus comparative negligence should apply. The appellate court agreed with the defendant and ESS, holding that a violation of Industrial Board regulations pursuant to the 1970 amendment to Labor Law § 202 is only some evidence of negligence, and therefore, comparative negligence should be considered by the jury.

Window Cleaning AccidentLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityComparative NegligenceStatutory DutyIndustrial Board of AppealsWorker SafetyJudgment AppealThird-Party ActionCommon-Law Negligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maxwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This is an appeal concerning the award of counsel fees in a no-fault automobile accident case. The plaintiff appealed the Trial Term's decision denying an excess counsel fee award, which was initially granted at the statutory maximum. Plaintiff argued that the case involved novel issues related to an exclusion clause and the basis for disclaimer under No-Fault Law, warranting higher fees. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Term's decision, finding that the issues, while skillfully handled, were not sufficiently novel or unique to justify an excess fee under 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (8) (vii), as they relied on established contract law and statutory construction. The court also rejected the plaintiff's constitutional challenge regarding the impairment of contracts, clarifying that the fee limitation only applies to the insurer, not the client, and dismissed an ex parte communication claim as outside the record.

No-Fault BenefitsCounsel FeesExcess Fee AwardStatutory InterpretationContract Law PrinciplesConstitutional ChallengeImpairment ClauseAppellate DivisionInsurance RegulationsLegal Practice
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2008

Westchester Medical Center v. Lincoln General Insurance

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to recover no-fault medical benefits. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case by showing that statutory billing forms were mailed and received, and the defendant failed to either pay or deny the claim within the 30-day period. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that letters advising of an investigation tolled the statutory period and that the period was tolled pending a no-fault application. Additionally, defenses related to Workers' Compensation benefits or the assignor's failure to appear at an examination under oath were found insufficient to defeat the medical provider's right to benefits.

no-fault insurancemedical benefitssummary judgmentinsurance contractstatutory periodtimely denialworkers' compensationpolicy conditionpreclusion remedyappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2008

LMK Psychological Service, P.C. v. American Transit Insurance

The plaintiffs, as assignees of no-fault benefits, sought to recover for health services rendered to beneficiaries of the defendant’s no-fault insurance contracts. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss several causes of action, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 because the injuries occurred during employment. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its original decision. The appellate court modified this determination, vacating the dismissal of those causes of action. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new determination after the Workers’ Compensation Board makes a finding on the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law, emphasizing the Board's primary jurisdiction over such factual issues.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsuranceMedical PaymentsSummary JudgmentPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewRemittalInsurance LawAutomobile AccidentJurisdictional Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co.

This case addresses whether Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability for elevation-related hazards, applies to a personal injury sustained by an employee. The plaintiff, working for King Insulation Company at the defendant's power plant, slipped and fell into a trough of hot oil while attempting to step over it. The trial court submitted the case under Labor Law § 241 (6), which allows for comparative fault, resulting in the plaintiff being found 90% at fault. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the accident was not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) because the 12-inch trough did not present an elevation-related risk intended by the statute, thus upholding the application of § 241 (6).

Personal InjuryLabor LawStatutory InterpretationComparative NegligenceAbsolute LiabilityElevation-Related RiskWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentHot Oil HazardAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 678 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