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

Siragusa v. State

The court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of claims made under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The appellate court agreed with the trial court's finding that the accident resulted from the claimant's negligence in driving off the shoulder, rather than any negligence on the part of the State. It was noted that claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) are subject to the defense of comparative negligence. Furthermore, Labor Law § 240 (1) was deemed inapplicable as the incident did not involve risks associated with falling from an elevated work site or being struck by falling objects, clarifying that a highway's contour does not constitute an elevated work platform.

NegligenceComparative NegligenceLabor Law 200Labor Law 240Labor Law 241Elevated Work SiteHighway AccidentWorker SafetyAffirmationAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. 55 AD3d 1050
Regular Panel Decision

Ayers v. O'Brien

Plaintiff, a Broome County Deputy Sheriff, was involved in an accident while making a U-turn to pursue a speeder, activating his emergency lights. He was struck by defendant Karin A. O’Brien's decelerating vehicle. After collecting workers' compensation, plaintiff sued O'Brien for negligence. Defendants asserted a comparative negligence defense. Plaintiff moved to dismiss this defense, arguing his conduct as an emergency vehicle operator should be subject to a "reckless disregard" standard under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e), thereby precluding his own negligence from consideration. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that § 1104 (e) is a shield protecting emergency operators from civil liability to others, not a sword allowing them to avoid comparative negligence when seeking damages for their own injuries against a bystander. The court concluded such claims should be decided under ordinary comparative negligence principles, reinstating the defendants' affirmative defense.

Emergency vehiclesReckless disregard standardComparative negligenceVehicle and Traffic LawPolice officer liabilityBystander liabilityWorkers' compensationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationTort law
References
7
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

Duva v. Flushing Hospital & Medical Center

Plaintiff Richard Duva, an electrician, sustained injuries after slipping on debris in a dark stairwell while working at Flushing Hospital & Medical Center, where G. C. Castagna & Sons, Inc. was the general contractor. Duva sued the owner and general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law § 200(1) and § 241(6). The defendants moved for the court to charge comparative negligence against the plaintiff. The court reviewed conflicting appellate decisions concerning the application of comparative and contributory negligence, particularly regarding the 'absolute liability' debate under Labor Law § 241(6). Following precedent from the Appellate Division, Second Department, the court determined that comparative negligence is applicable to both Labor Law § 200(1) and § 241(6).

Comparative NegligenceContributory NegligenceLabor LawSection 200Section 241Nondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilityVicarious LiabilityConstruction SafetyWorkplace Injury
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart

This case concerns Keith Bauer, a window cleaner, who was severely injured after falling from a third-story window while working for Environmental Service Systems at the Female Academy of the Sacred Heart. The accident occurred due to a safety hook becoming stuck on a square anchor, which violated Industrial Code standards. The primary legal issues were whether claims under Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240 (1) could coexist, and if Labor Law § 202 imposed strict liability or comparative negligence. The Court of Appeals held that both Labor Law claims can be pursued simultaneously and determined that Labor Law § 202 is a comparative negligence statute, not a strict liability one. The court modified previous rulings by reinstating the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim for further proceedings, while affirming the comparative negligence approach for the Labor Law § 202 claim.

Window Cleaner InjuryLabor LawStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceSafety AnchorsIndustrial Code ViolationConstruction SafetyThird-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Horizon Lines, LLC

Eddie Johnson, a seaman, sued Horizon Lines LLC and the vessel MTV HORIZON CONSUMER for personal injuries suffered after falling through an uncovered hatch on the main deck while working. Johnson alleged negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness, moving for partial summary judgment on liability. He contended that the defendant's violations of specific Coast Guard regulations precluded a comparative negligence defense. The court, presided by Senior District Judge Haight, denied Johnson's motion, determining that the invoked Coast Guard regulations did not apply to an open hatch in the manner argued. Therefore, the court concluded that the conditions did not establish negligence per se or preclude the doctrine of comparative fault. The case will proceed to a jury for determination of negligence, contributory negligence, causation, and damages.

Seaman InjuryMaritime LawJones ActUnseaworthinessComparative NegligenceCoast Guard RegulationsSummary Judgment MotionHatch AccidentVessel SafetyFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2012

Bracker v. New York City Transit Authority

The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, unanimously affirmed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, which awarded the plaintiff a total of $204,104.52 based on a jury verdict. The appellate court found that the jury's conclusion was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, indicating that circumstantial evidence suggested the defendant's cleaning workers had ample time to discover and remedy a sticky soda spill on internal stairs before the plaintiff's accident. Furthermore, the defendant failed to preserve an argument concerning an allegedly inconsistent verdict regarding the plaintiff's comparative negligence. The appellate court noted that even if the issue had been preserved, there was a reasonable view of the evidence to find the plaintiff negligent for observing the condition without that negligence being the sole proximate cause of the fall, thus not warranting a retrial on comparative negligence.

Jury verdictAppellate reviewPremises liabilityComparative negligenceProximate causeSlip and fallStair accidentCircumstantial evidenceHazardous conditionWorker discovery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1999

Duffy v. United States

Plaintiffs Noreene L. Duffy and James F. Duffy sued Irwin Berliner, Dean P. Vlassis (landlords), and the United States for injuries Mrs. Duffy sustained in a trip-and-fall accident at a post office due to a sidewalk defect. The court found the landlords not liable, determining they had no contractual obligation to repair the sidewalk. The United States was found negligent for failing to maintain the sidewalk, which presented a significant tripping hazard. Mrs. Duffy was also found one-third comparatively negligent for not observing the defect. The court awarded Mrs. Duffy $83,333.33 and Mr. Duffy $16,666.67 in damages against the United States, after accounting for Mrs. Duffy's comparative negligence.

Trip and FallSidewalk HazardPremises LiabilityNegligenceComparative NegligenceFederal Tort Claims ActPersonal InjuryLandlord-Tenant LawProperty Owner DutyDamages
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 2,857 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