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

Consolidated Edison Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an appeal by Con Edison against a decision by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division found Con Edison discriminated against Pamela Easton, a Black female employee, based on sex and race by denying her promotions to management positions. Easton, despite seniority and experience, was bypassed for promotions in favor of less experienced white male employees whom she had often trained. The Division ordered Con Edison to offer Easton a supervisory position with back pay, benefits, and $10,000 for humiliation and mental anguish. The dissenting judge believes there was substantial evidence to support the Division's determination and would have confirmed its order, thereby dismissing Con Edison's petition.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationPromotional DenialSubstantial Evidence ReviewAdministrative Agency DecisionHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionSeniority
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kraker v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Joseph Kraker was injured while repairing a street light in Queens and sued Con Edison. Con Edison then filed a third-party action against Kraker's employer, Welsbach Electric Corp., for contribution and indemnification. Welsbach moved for summary judgment, arguing Kraker's injury was not a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court initially denied Welsbach's motion. Welsbach later moved to renew, presenting new deposition testimony where Kraker described being able to use his hand for various tasks, demonstrating that he did not suffer a total loss of use. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granted Welsbach's motion for leave to renew, and upon renewal, granted summary judgment to Welsbach, dismissing the third-party complaint.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintContributionIndemnificationLoss of UseAppellate ProcedureNew York Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1990

Michalak v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a third-party action, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Con Edison) sought common-law and contractual indemnification from Akron Wrecking Co., Inc. (Akron), an employer whose employee, Michalak, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Con Edison. Akron, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss Con Edison's third-party complaint. The Supreme Court initially granted Akron's motion, dismissing the complaint entirely without prejudice to contractual indemnification. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Division held that Con Edison, by requiring Akron to name it as an additional insured on primary and excess liability policies, waived its right to common-law indemnification up to the aggregate limits of those policies. Consequently, Akron's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of dismissing claims for common-law indemnification, with the motion otherwise denied.

IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAdditional InsuredWaiver of IndemnityThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Dan Buckley, a former management employee, sued Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Executive Law § 296, alleging discrimination based on his disability as a rehabilitated alcohol/substance abuser and termination due to his inability to provide a urine sample for drug testing. The court had previously dismissed his complaint but allowed him to replead, finding he adequately alleged disability but not discrimination based on it. In his amended complaint, Buckley conceded his bladder condition, which prevented him from urinating on command, was not an ADA disability but argued Con Edison's drug testing procedures were unreasonable. The court granted Con Edison's motion to dismiss, concluding that failure to accommodate a non-disability does not constitute an ADA violation, and Buckley failed to allege that his actual disability (alcohol/substance abuse) was not reasonably accommodated.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationDrug TestingReasonable AccommodationAlcohol AbuseSubstance AbuseTermination of EmploymentMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12New York State Executive Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co.

This action addresses the protection of individuals exposed to toxic substances, specifically asbestos, who suffer no current physical disability but are at risk of future illness. The court recognizes the right for victims of toxic torts to seek the cost of continuous medical monitoring to allow early disease detection. Employee plaintiffs of Con Edison were exposed to friable asbestos after an explosion and seek medical monitoring, emotional distress, and battery damages. Con Edison moved for partial summary judgment, arguing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 bars the claims. The court dismissed claims for emotional distress and battery, finding them compensable under Workers' Compensation or not ripe for common law. However, the court denied dismissal of the medical monitoring and public nuisance claims, ruling they are not compensable under Workers' Compensation Law as they don't involve a present disability, and recognized a common-law cause of action for medical monitoring in New York.

Asbestos ExposureToxic TortMedical MonitoringWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional Tort ExceptionEmotional Distress ClaimsBattery ClaimsPublic NuisanceSummary Judgment MotionFuture Disease Risk
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York Asbestos Litig.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted defendant Consolidated Edison's (Con Edison) posttrial motion, setting aside the verdict against it and dismissing the complaint. This appellate decision reversed that determination, reinstating the jury's verdict against Con Edison on the Labor Law § 200 claim. The court found that Con Edison improperly set aside the verdict, as evidence showed Con Edison had the authority to control the activity causing injury, specifically mandating the use of hazardous asbestos-containing materials. A new trial on damages for loss of consortium was ordered unless the plaintiff agrees to reduce the verdict to $360,000.

Labor Law § 200Asbestos LitigationPosttrial MotionVerdict ReinstatementLoss of ConsortiumAppellate ReviewHazardous MaterialsContractor LiabilityControl of WorkDamages Reduction
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05813 [198 AD3d 564]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2021

Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Plaintiff Ramon Hernandez sued Consolidated Edison for negligence after his hand was pulled into a bread machine operating in reverse due to Con Ed's faulty rewiring of subterranean electrical cables. A jury found Con Ed negligent and awarded Hernandez damages for past and future pain and suffering, as well as lost earnings. Con Ed's motion to set aside the jury verdict was denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The court found that the trial evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdict regarding Con Ed's negligence and the awarded damages, and dismissed Con Ed's other contentions.

NegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryElectrical WiringDamages AwardPain and SufferingLost EarningsJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2003

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Vilsmeier Auction Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a common-law indemnification claim. Stuart Claar, an employee of Vilsmeier Auction Co., died after falling from a ladder while decommissioning a vehicle at a Con Edison facility. His wife, Joan Claar, initially sued both Con Edison and Vilsmeier under common-law negligence and Labor Law sections. After settling with Joan Claar, Con Edison, as plaintiff in a cross-claim, sought common-law indemnification from Vilsmeier, alleging breach of duty regarding equipment and supervision. A jury found both parties liable, but the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's denial of Vilsmeier's post-trial motion. The appellate court held that Con Edison was required to prove Vilsmeier's negligence for common-law indemnification, and there was no rational evidence to support such a finding, leading to the dismissal of Con Edison's complaint.

Common-law indemnificationLabor Law § 240 (1)NegligenceProximate causeSummary judgmentJury verdictAppellate reviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Workplace accidentLadder fall
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00112 [168 AD3d 717]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2019

Moscati v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury case involving Michael Moscati, an excavator operator injured on a Consolidated Edison work site. Moscati's excavator slid into a creek while removing timber, leading to claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), citing various Industrial Code provisions. The Supreme Court initially granted Consolidated Edison's motion for summary judgment, dismissing these claims. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, concluding that Consolidated Edison failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Specifically, Con Ed did not demonstrate a lack of notice regarding dangerous premises conditions or an absence of authority to supervise the work.

Construction accidentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code violationsExcavator accidentSummary judgmentPrima facie caseDangerous premises conditionSupervision and controlAppellate Division
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The plaintiffs, who are stockholders of Con Edison, sought to compel the defendant company to include a nonbinding resolution in its proxy materials for the annual shareholders meeting. The proposed resolution endorsed allowing employees to retire after 30 years of service, regardless of age. Con Edison refused, citing SEC rules that allow exclusion of proposals dealing with ordinary business operations or personal claims. The SEC staff issued a no-action letter supporting Con Edison's position. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding they did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, as the proposal fell under the 'ordinary business operations' exception. Consequently, the court granted Con Edison's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

Shareholder proposalProxy materialsSEC Rule 14a-8Ordinary business operationsPension rightsEmployee benefitsSummary judgmentPreliminary injunctionCorporate governanceSecurities Exchange Act of 1934
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 238 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