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. CA 14-00281
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

MAYER, CHERYL D. v. CONRAD, MATTHEW J.

This wrongful death action arose from a construction site accident where the plaintiff's decedent, a Fisher Concrete, Inc. employee, was fatally injured when an unsecured embankment collapsed. Plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law and common-law negligence, while defendants filed a third-party action seeking indemnification from Fisher Concrete, Inc. The Supreme Court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing an issue of fact regarding the defendants' actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the third-party complaint seeking common-law indemnification, concluding that the defendants could not be held vicariously liable for the third party's negligence.

Wrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityExcavation WorkErie CountyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2013

Mayer v. Conrad

Plaintiff commenced a wrongful death action following a construction site accident involving the collapse of an unsecured seven- to nine-foot-high embankment, alleging violations of the Labor Law and common-law negligence against the defendants. The defendants, including Matthew J. Conrad, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Fisher Concrete, Inc. for common-law indemnification or contribution. The Supreme Court's order partially denied motions for summary judgment from both the third-party defendant and the defendants/third-party plaintiffs. On appeal, the order was modified to grant Fisher's motion in part, dismissing the common-law indemnification claim against it. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim and common-law negligence cause of action against the defendants, concluding the embankment constituted a premises condition and an issue of fact existed regarding defendant Conrad's notice of the dangerous condition.

Wrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationPremises ConditionManner and Method of WorkExcavation WorkAppellate Division
References
21
Case No. VNO 0421742
Regular
Mar 17, 2008

CONRAD GAC vs. DAY SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC.

The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision dismissing the applicant's workers' compensation claim for lack of jurisdiction. The Board found the applicant's exclusive remedy lies in admiralty law against the United States, as the defendant employer acted as an agent of the U.S. government for a vessel owned by the U.S. Navy. Previously decided jurisdictional and timeliness issues were deemed law of the case and affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardConrad GacDay Ship ManagementInc.cumulative traumamerchant marine seamanpetition for reconsiderationlack of jurisdictionSuits in Admiralty ActPublic Vessels Act
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2007

Morgan v. Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund Co.

In an action for personal injuries, the defendant Great American Construction Co., Inc. (GAC) appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied GAC's cross-motion to dismiss other Labor Law and common-law negligence claims. The appellate court modified the order by granting GAC's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action. The remaining aspects of the order, including the plaintiff's summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and the denial of GAC's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, were affirmed. The case involved a plaintiff injured at a renovation site owned by Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., where GAC was the general contractor.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppealGeneral Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityStatutory ViolationWorker SafetyConstruction SiteDangerous Condition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Property Holding Corp. v. District 65, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers (In re District 65, United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America)

This case concerns an appeal by New York Property Holding Corp. (Purchaser) against District 65 (Union) regarding two bankruptcy orders. The core dispute involves an agreement for the Purchaser to acquire property from the Union, which fell through due to the Purchaser's failure to meet closing deadlines. The Purchaser cited the property not being fully vacant and financing issues, despite the contract not stipulating these as conditions for closing. Bankruptcy Judge Conrad ultimately ruled the Purchaser in default and permitted the Union to keep the $250,000 deposit as liquidated damages. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, in this appeal, affirmed Judge Conrad's decisions, upholding the contract's 'time of the essence' clause and the enforceability of the liquidated damages provision, irrespective of the Union's subsequent sale of the property for a higher price.

Bankruptcy AppealContract InterpretationReal Estate ContractTime of the Essence ClauseLiquidated DamagesBreach of ContractProperty SaleAppellate ReviewDefaultContractual Obligations
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Langan v. St. Vincent's Hospital

John Langan sought wrongful death damages for his civil union partner, Neil Conrad Spicehandler, against St. Vincent's Hospital of New York after Conrad's death. The central issue was Langan's standing as a 'surviving spouse' under EPTL 5-4.1, which the defendant challenged due to the same-sex nature of their relationship. The Supreme Court initially denied the dismissal motion, but the appellate court reversed, affirming that New York's statutory definition of marriage, and thus 'surviving spouse,' applies exclusively to different-sex couples. Citing legal precedents like Baker v Nelson and Matter of Cooper, the court concluded that restricting marital rights to different-sex couples does not violate equal protection. The decision emphasized that any redefinition of marriage to include same-sex relationships falls within the purview of the Legislature, not the judiciary.

Wrongful deathSame-sex civil unionSurviving spouseEPTL 5-4.1Equal Protection ClauseConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationMarriage definitionJudicial precedentLegislative intent
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1997

Reeves Bros., Inc. v. Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp.

Reeves Brothers, Inc. (Reeves) sought confirmation of an arbitration award against Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp. (Capital). Capital cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging inadequate disclosure of relationships between two arbitrators, Norman Hackel and Lawrence H. Bober, and Reeves. The underlying dispute involved unpaid invoices for chemically-treated fabric sold by Reeves to Capital. The arbitration, conducted under the General Arbitration Council of the Textile and Apparel Industries (GAC), resulted in a unanimous award in favor of Reeves. Capital challenged the arbitrators' qualifications during the process, but the GAC denied the applications for disqualification. The court, applying Federal Arbitration Law and the 'evident partiality' standard, found that Capital failed to demonstrate sufficient partiality or prejudice to vacate the award. Therefore, the court granted Reeves' motion to confirm the arbitration award and denied Capital's cross-motion to vacate it.

ArbitrationArbitrator DisclosureEvident PartialityVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCommercial DisputeTextile IndustryUCC 2-207Federal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit
References
18
Case No. 17 Misc 3d 1118(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 52054(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Conrad v. 105 Street Associates

The appeals court reversed a lower court order which denied site owner 105 Street's motion for conditional summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against subcontractor JEM. The case originated from a personal injury action sustained by a worker at a construction site. The court found that JEM had a contractual obligation to indemnify 105 Street for claims arising from its negligence and was solely responsible for safety precautions. Despite issues of fact regarding the removal of a barrier, the court determined that JEM's failure to implement adequate safety measures, coupled with a clear causal connection to the injury and no evidence of 105 Street's negligence, warranted granting conditional summary judgment. Additionally, an appeal from an order denying reargument was dismissed as nonappealable.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilitySite Owner ResponsibilityNegligenceSafety PrecautionsUnguarded OpeningDebris
References
3
Case No. ADJ2379799 (RIV 0066166)
Regular
Jan 22, 2014

NORIS CONRAD vs. VISITING NURSES ASSOCIATION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In this workers' compensation matter, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed. The lien claimant was personally served with the underlying Dismissal Order on October 31, 2013, and the petition was filed after the statutory deadline.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissal OrderLien claimantPersonal serviceUntimelyReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeZurich North AmericaVisiting Nurses Association
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donnell v. Stogel

Laura J. Donnell sued Conrad E. Stogel for breach of a written agreement made after they cohabitated and she significantly contributed to his business. The agreement promised Donnell a salary and bonus for several years, but Stogel later repudiated it. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the contract unenforceable as it allegedly facilitated adultery and was not severable. The appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the agreement was not primarily intended to promote adultery and that any illegal aspects could be severed from the valid consideration, which included Donnell's extensive business assistance. The case was reinstated and remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.

Contract EnforceabilityCohabitation AgreementUnmarried CouplesBreach of ContractSeverability ClauseIllegality of ContractConsiderationBusiness PartnershipAppellate ReviewTrial Court Dismissal
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 15 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