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. 2023 NY Slip Op 02149 [215 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Morales (Amazon Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Nancy Morales, a delivery partner for Amazon Logistics, Inc. (ALI), applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined an employment relationship existed between Morales and ALI, making ALI liable for contributions. ALI appealed, arguing that Morales was an independent contractor and not totally unemployed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that ALI exercised sufficient control over its delivery partners, mirroring precedent set in *Matter of Khaychuk*. The court also ruled that the 'not totally unemployed' argument was not properly before it, as it was outside the scope of the administrative hearing.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery ServicesAmazon FlexControl TestAppellate ReviewLabor Law ComplianceUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00498 [190 AD3d 647]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Morales v. 2400 Ryer Ave. Realty, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which had denied plaintiff Jose Luis Morales's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against 2400 Ryer Avenue Realty, LLC and 2400 C & F Food Corp. The Court found that Morales established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating his ladder slipped, causing him to fall. Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact regarding a recalcitrant worker defense or that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident, with the Court noting that using an A-frame ladder in a closed position is not a per se reason for sole proximate cause. The decision emphasized that defendants' arguments amounted to comparative negligence, which is not a valid defense under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor LawLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01459 [192 AD3d 1292]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of Morales (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision)

Samuel Morales, a correction sergeant, was injured while restraining an inmate who had attempted to punch him, subsequently being placed on workers' compensation leave. His employment was terminated after one year by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, arguing his injury did not result from an 'assault' as per Civil Service Law § 71, thus denying him a two-year leave. Morales challenged this in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, initially dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed, ruling that the inmate's attempted punch constituted an 'intentional physical act of violence directed toward an employee,' meeting the assault definition for § 71 eligibility. The court found the respondent's determination arbitrary, capricious, and affected by an error of law, clarifying that the statute requires disability 'resulting from' an assault, not 'directly caused' by it.

Workers' CompensationCivil Service Law § 71AssaultLeave of AbsenceCorrection SergeantInmate AltercationEmployment TerminationCPLR article 78Statutory InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morales v. Walter

The court addresses whether sections 2-9 of the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996 (L 1996, ch 635) should be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of their enactment. The plaintiff, Raymond Morales, sustained injuries while employed by The Ullman Company, Inc. and sued Vanderbilt Associates, from whom Ullman leased premises. Vanderbilt then commenced a third-party action against Ullman for contribution and/or indemnification. Ullman moved to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by the antisubrogation rule, as it had obtained liability insurance for both itself and Vanderbilt. The Act amended Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 to generally eliminate an employer’s liability for contribution to third parties, except in cases of 'grave injury.' The court concluded that the relevant sections of the Act should not be applied retroactively, citing the presumption of prospective application and the absence of clear legislative intent for retroactivity. Additionally, Ullman failed to demonstrate that the personal injury claim was a risk covered by an 'insured contract' exception in the policy. Therefore, the Supreme Court's denial of Ullman's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation ReformStatutory RetroactivityThird-Party ContributionEmployer IndemnificationAntisubrogation RuleInsurance Policy Interpretation"Effective Immediately" ClauseLegislative IntentSubstantive RightsProspective Application
References
39
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01461
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of Morales v. Lopez

Claimant, Steven Morales, a laborer, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries to his left hand, wrist, and leg from a fall during demolition work. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant's testimony incredible due to contradictions with initial emergency room records and disallowed the claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, denying the claimant's request to introduce a new sworn statement on administrative appeal. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling there was no abuse of discretion in refusing new evidence and that substantial evidence supported the Board's credibility determination that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.

Credibility DeterminationEmergency Room RecordsNew Evidence AdmissibilityWork-related InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionClaim DisallowanceFactual IssueConflict in Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morales v. Plaxall, Inc.

Nazario Morales, a former employee of Plaxall, Inc., sued to recover employment benefits under the defendant's profit sharing plan, established under ERISA. Morales was discharged in 1977 after admitting to personal use of company materials. The central issue was the timing of benefit distribution, specifically whether a 1976 amendment allowing early payment upon termination of employment was legally effective despite later deletion. The court determined that the 1976 amended plan was effective at the time of Morales's termination, entitling him to early payment of vested benefits. The court awarded Morales his vested benefits and $5,600 in attorney's fees and costs, and also awarded Plaxall $200 on its counterclaim for misappropriation.

ERISAProfit Sharing PlanEmployee BenefitsVested RightsPlan AmendmentsTermination of EmploymentEarly PaymentAttorney's FeesMisappropriationUnilateral Contract
References
9
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07295
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2025

Morales v. 88th Ave. Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Elihu Romero Morales, was injured at a construction site in Queens when struck in the eye by a spark from ironwork. He sued 88th Avenue Owner, LLC, and NY Developers & Managers, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The defendants then initiated a second third-party action against subcontractors Feinstein Iron Works, Inc., and Construction Realty Safety Group, Inc., for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the second third-party complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this order, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, awarding summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims, and directing the dismissal of the second third-party complaint without prejudice due to a four-year delay in its commencement. The Court found Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable as sparks are not objects requiring securing for elevation-related hazards, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) inapplicable as the plaintiff was not directly engaged in the eye-endangering operation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardThird-Party ActionDismissal Without PrejudiceSparksEye InjurySubcontractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
22
Case No. ADJ8574227
Regular
Sep 17, 2013

Victor Morales vs. Fresh Start Harvesting, Sedgwick Claims Management Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding Victor Morales' injuryAOE/COE. Morales was injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling in a caravan led by his supervisor to a work site. The WCAB adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which concluded the "going and coming" rule did not apply as Morales was following direct employer orders. The evidence supported that the injury occurred within the course and scope of employment.

WCABADJ8574227Petition for ReconsiderationDenialWCJ ReportGoing and Coming RuleAOE/COEIndustrially RelatedCaravanMotor Vehicle Accident
References
1
Case No. ADJ6496249
Regular
Feb 04, 2019

GLADIS MORALES vs. QUAKE CITY; Administered by COMPWEST

Gladis Morales sought reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied her petition, finding no grounds to overturn the original finding. This ruling likely affirmed or modified an initial determination regarding Morales's claim against Quake City, administered by Compwest. The specific reasons for the denial are detailed within the full opinion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQuake CityCOMPWESTGLADIS MORALESADJ6496249Petition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionLos Angeles District OfficeOpinion and OrderCalifornia Workers' Compensation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 1986

People v. Morales

The Supreme Court, New York County, reversed a prior order that had granted the defendant's motion to suppress a loaded .38 caliber revolver and his statements to police. This case originated from a 1982 indictment for criminal possession of a weapon. The Court of Appeals previously reversed an affirmation of suppression, clarifying that a frisk does not automatically trigger custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings. On remand, Criminal Term again granted suppression without a new hearing. The Supreme Court, applying the Court of Appeals' principles, found that the detective's interaction with the defendant did not constitute custodial interrogation, as there was no restraint of freedom or force beyond a frisk and non-coercive questioning. Consequently, the motion to suppress was denied, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.

Suppression MotionCriminal Possession of a WeaponMiranda RightsCustodial InterrogationStop and FriskFourth AmendmentAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityPolice ProcedureReversal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 259 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