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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

6085 Strickland Associates v. Whitmore Group, Ltd.

This case involves an action where the plaintiff sued insurance brokers for negligent failure to procure insurance. The plaintiff alleged that the Genstar policy, intended for a vacant property, should have remained active alongside the Sirius policy, which covered construction-related liabilities. The Genstar policy was cancelled due to unpaid premiums. The plaintiff contended that the brokers had a duty to reinstate the policy or procure replacement coverage. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant brokers' cross-motion, finding no breach of duty. The plaintiff failed to pay the premium after receiving a cancellation notice, and there was no evidence of a specific request for the Genstar policy's renewal or concurrent operation with the Sirius policy. The brokers fulfilled their obligation by securing the Sirius policy.

Negligent failure to procure insuranceInsurance brokersSummary judgmentPolicy cancellationPremium nonpaymentConstruction insuranceLitigation costsDuty of brokerReplacement policyInsurance Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1984

Smalls v. Kaufmann

The appellate court addressed two appeals in an automobile negligence action for personal injuries. The plaintiff appealed the denial of her cross-motion to strike the defendant's workers' compensation affirmative defense. Concurrently, the defendant appealed the denial of her motion to stay the trial pending a Workers' Compensation Board determination on the plaintiff's eligibility. The court reversed both lower court orders. It remanded the case to the Supreme Court, Queens County, with instructions to refer the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board for a factual hearing to ascertain the plaintiff's rights to workers' compensation benefits. Furthermore, the court granted the defendant's motion, thereby staying the trial until the Board renders its final determination, emphasizing the Board's primary jurisdiction in such matters.

Automobile NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefensePrimary JurisdictionStay of ProceedingsAppellate ReviewFactual HearingSupreme CourtReferral to BoardEligibility for Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish

The dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in dismissing a contractor's negligence claim against a town. The dissent contends the town violated Labor Law § 220 (3-a) (a) by failing to determine worker classifications, which resulted in the contractor incurring damages for underpayment of prevailing wages. It asserts that the statute's legislative intent includes protection for contractors and that denying a negligence cause of action leaves the contractor without an effective remedy for reimbursement. Additionally, the dissent argues against dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. It advocates for the order to be modified, denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and granting, in part, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability in negligence, remitting the matter for further proceedings on damages and contributory negligence.

NegligenceStatutory DutyLabor LawPrevailing WagePublic WorksUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentContributory NegligenceReimbursementLegislative Intent
References
17
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
Dec 01, 1994

Kuznetz v. County of Nassau

The plaintiff, an adjunct professor at Nassau Community College, suffered a fractured ankle after tripping on a staircase at the college. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, she filed a negligence action against the College, the Board of Trustees, and the County of Nassau, alleging negligent maintenance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 as they were joint employers. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to establish that the County, the College, and the Board of Trustees were indeed the plaintiff's joint employers, thus barring the negligence action. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted, dismissing the complaint against all parties.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawJoint EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNassau Community CollegeCounty of NassauEducation LawTrip and Fall
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirsch v. Polymark Corp.

Maria Hirsch, the plaintiff, brought an action for personal injuries sustained on November 30, 1990, while operating a logo machine at her workplace, Andmore Sportswear Corporation. She sued Polymark Corporation, the machine's seller, alleging negligence for a missing flap guard, which led to her finger being severely injured and amputated. Polymark, in turn, filed a third-party claim against Andmore, accusing it of negligence in altering the machine's finger guard. A jury found both Polymark (15% liable) and Andmore (85% liable) negligent. Andmore subsequently moved to set aside the verdict and vacate the judgment, claiming the jury's findings were inconsistent due to the presentation of single theories of liability. The Court, however, denied Andmore's motions, finding a plausible interpretation of the jury's verdict that supported concurrent negligence.

Personal InjuryProduct LiabilityNegligenceThird-Party ClaimWorker's CompensationJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsRule 50Rule 59Rule 60
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Linger v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

Claimant sustained permanent partial disabilities from two 1977 accidents and one 1980 accident, leading to separate awards from different employers and their respective insurance carriers. Initially, the claimant received concurrent benefits exceeding the statutory maximum rate. Upon discovering these concurrent payments, a joint hearing was held. An Administrative Law Judge apportioned the award, which was subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, stating that concurrent awards exceeding the statutory maximum for a permanent partial disability were impermissible. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for a per-accident application of the statutory maximum. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law establishes an overall maximum rate for permanent partial disability regardless of the number of accidents or employments.

Permanent Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory MaximumApportionmentMultiple AccidentsWage LossJudicial PrecedentAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardInsurance Carriers
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1999

Light v. Antedeminico

Roger Light, a maintenance worker for Pawling Corp., initiated this action against Anthony Antedeminico d/b/a Tony’s Construction, a subcontractor, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained after falling into an excavated pit. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the common-law negligence claim, maintaining that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendant's potential negligence. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original decision, prompting the defendant to appeal. The appellate court subsequently reversed the lower court's order, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. The court reasoned that the defendant successfully demonstrated a lack of sufficient control over the construction site, thereby owing no duty of care to the injured plaintiff, and the plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue of fact to counter this.

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDuty of CareConstruction SiteSubcontractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityDutchess CountyNew York Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,923 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