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

City Council v. Town Board

East-West Realty Corporation, owner of 37 acres in the Town of Colonie, sought to have its property, along with an additional 6 acres, annexed by the City of Watervliet to facilitate a senior citizen assisted-living development. The Town of Colonie denied the petition, citing non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and lack of overall public interest. The City of Watervliet, however, approved the petition and initiated a court proceeding to determine if the annexation was in the public interest, with East-West intervening as a petitioner. The Town of Colonie moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that Watervliet failed to comply with SEQRA prior to approving the annexation. The court found that annexation constitutes an 'action' subject to SEQRA review, even for parcels less than 100 acres, and that such review must occur at the earliest opportunity. Concluding that no SEQRA compliance occurred before the joint hearing, the court granted the Town of Colonie's motion and dismissed the petition.

annexationSEQRAenvironmental reviewzoning restrictionspublic interestmunicipal lawType I actionunlisted actionCPLR 404General Municipal Law
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03287
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

Dejesus v. Downtown Re Holdings LLC

Plaintiff Brian Dejesus was injured when a steel tubing fell through a gap in a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, addressing multiple indemnification and breach of contract claims among the owner (Downtown Re Holdings LLC), general contractor (Noble Construction Group, LLC), and various subcontractors. The court found triable issues of fact regarding Noble's negligence and granted Downtown summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. due to its negligence in bridge erection. Claims against City Safety Compliance Corp. were dismissed as its role was merely advisory. The decision also involved contractual indemnification between Downtown/Noble and The Safety Group, Ltd., granting a breach of contract claim against TSG for failing to procure required insurance.

Construction AccidentSidewalk Bridge DefectIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance ProcurementBreach of Contract
References
12
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01325 [225 AD3d 723]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2024

Samperi v. City Safety Compliance Corp.

Plaintiff Salvatore Samperi was injured at a construction site when an outward swinging access gate hit him. He sued multiple defendants, including Northeast Interior Specialists, LLC, alleging Labor Law § 200 violations and common-law negligence. Northeast moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, ruling that Northeast failed to establish prima facie that it did not create the dangerous condition of the gate.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawCommon-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkDangerous ConditionSubcontractor LiabilityProximate Cause
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05172 [220 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Matter of Espinoza v. City Safety Compliance Corp.

Jaime Espinoza, a safety manager, sustained injuries while pulling a gate in a parking area adjacent to a construction site after his shift. He filed for workers' compensation, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer neither controlled the parking area nor was it part of the jobsite. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The Court found a sufficient nexus between the employment and the parking area, noting that Espinoza was instructed to park there and construction materials were stored by the general contractor in the same vicinity, thereby extending the employer's premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryParking Area InjuryPremises Extension DoctrineRemittalAppellate Division Third DepartmentConstruction SiteSafety ManagerArising Out of Employment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. ANA 0388116
Regular
May 05, 2008

CAROLINA LOPEZ vs. MARINA HOTEL\/DISNEYLAND HOTEL

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought to disallow a lien claim for dispensed medications, arguing the physician failed to prove compliance with specific Business and Professions Code sections regarding dispensing. The Appeals Board affirmed the lower decision, holding that the lien claimant is not required to proactively prove compliance with all dispensing statutes. Instead, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the treatment was unreasonable due to non-compliance if they raise that issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimCompromise and ReleaseBusiness and Professions CodePrescriber DispensingAdministrative Law JudgeReconsiderationMedical TreatmentLicensed PhysicianEnforcement Authority
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2008

Weiss v. El Ad Properties NY LLC

A plaintiff worker, a carpenter, sustained injuries when an A-frame dolly he was guiding down a ramp veered, striking him in the face with metal studs. The worker filed a lawsuit against the property owner, El Ad Properties, and the general contractor, Tishman Construction, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) due to an unsafe ramp. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing compliance with the Industrial Code based on deposition testimony. However, the plaintiff's own testimony disputed the ramp's mandated width and proper plank spacing, raising a triable issue of fact regarding compliance with 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b) (3). Consequently, the defendants failed to meet their initial burden of proving prima facie compliance, leading to the affirmation of the denial of their summary judgment motion.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeRamp SafetyConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryPremises LiabilityGeneral ContractorProperty OwnerTriable Issue of Fact
References
0
Case No. CR-007805-25BX
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2025

People v. Jefferson M.Q.

The case addresses whether the 2025 amendments to Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law, defining 'due diligence' for discovery, apply to a certificate of compliance filed before the amendments' effective date. The defendant, charged with driving while intoxicated, moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument due to the prosecution's failure to provide Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) attachments as ordered by the court. The court determined that the 2025 amendments are procedural and remedial, thus applying to pending criminal actions regardless of when the certificate of compliance was filed. Applying the 2025 due diligence standard, the court found the People failed to exercise due diligence by making perfunctory efforts, missing statutory deadlines, delaying in requesting ordered material, and failing to explain or correct the lapse. Consequently, the court deemed the People's certificate of compliance invalid and their statement of readiness illusory. As the People exceeded their allotted speedy trial time (92 chargeable days against a 90-day limit), the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument was granted.

Discovery ComplianceDue DiligenceCertificate of ComplianceSpeedy TrialStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of StatutesCriminal Procedure LawIAB AttachmentsMisdemeanor ChargesProsecutorial Misconduct
References
30
Case No. LAO 0878674
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

KARLA BUENO vs. PLAZA DEFENDANT LA RAZA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that barred a lien claim due to the alleged lack of a fictitious business name permit. The WCAB found that while the lien claimant presented a surgical clinic license, the record was unclear about its actual business name and compliance with fictitious name filing requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine the lien claimant's true name and establish its compliance with fictitious business name laws.

Fictitious Business Name StatementSurgical Clinic LicenseHealth ServicesBusiness and Professions CodeMedical BoardLien ClaimantOutpatient SettingAdministrative Law JudgeReconsiderationReasonableness of Fees
References
14
Case No. ADJ6635537
Regular
May 06, 2011

EDDIE ESPINOZA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a dispute over medical treatment network (MPN) compliance for an industrial back injury. The WCAB granted reconsideration to address whether the defendant's inadequate MPN notices led to a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment, impacting the admissibility of outside medical reports. The Board will require the WCJ to re-evaluate MPN compliance and the propriety of further medical development. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision consistent with the Board's opinion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryMedical TreatmentTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMedical Legal Process
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 707 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