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
Dec 01, 2006

Beja v. Ford

The plaintiff, a former employee, initiated an action against Meadowbrook Ford d/b/a Syosset Ford and Steven Weiss for wrongful termination and personal injuries. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, while the plaintiff cross-moved to amend it. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding the plaintiff's allegations insufficient to state a cause of action or barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint was denied.

Wrongful TerminationEmployment LawMotion to DismissLeave to Amend ComplaintVicarious LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate ProcedureCPLR 3211CPLR 3025
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. & Local 484, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers

This case involves a petitioner's motion to vacate an arbitration award and an employer's cross-motion to confirm it. The core dispute concerns an employee's entitlement to pay for a day missed due to illness during a holiday week in 1959. The employee worked for a short period on Labor Day, was then excused due to illness, and remained ill the following Tuesday. The employer paid for the holiday and other workdays but not for Tuesday, arguing that existing benefits provided a maximum of a normal week's pay. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by modifying the contract. However, the court ruled that the arbitrator acted within his powers by interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the motion to vacate the award was denied, and the cross-motion to confirm the award was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday PaySick PayContract InterpretationJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeEmployment LawMotion to VacateMotion to Confirm
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pocketbook Workers Union, Local 1 v. Centra Leather Goods Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of an arbitration award, initiated by a motion to confirm and a cross-motion to vacate the award. The underlying dispute concerned an employer's alleged relocation of its plant from New York City to Oklahoma. The arbitrator issued an award enjoining the employer from moving, mandating the return of shipped machinery, and providing for lost wages. The court addressed multiple objections, including procedural issues, arbitrator impartiality, the scope of equitable relief in arbitration, and jurisdictional challenges. While most objections were dismissed, the court expressed reservations about enforcing the mandatory injunction for machinery return due to insufficient proof. Ultimately, the motion to confirm the arbitration award was granted, and the cross-motion to vacate was denied, with a directive to settle the judgment as indicated.

ArbitrationEquitable ReliefInjunctionLabor DisputeContract InterpretationJudicial ReviewBankruptcy ActLabor Management Relations ActArbitrator ImpartialityMandatory Injunction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christiansen v. Bonacio Construction, Inc.

Plaintiff, a mason tender, sustained injuries when a scaffold frame fell and struck him on the head and neck while working on a condominium building. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), alongside a common-law negligence claim, against the general contractor, Bonacio Construction, Inc., and the building owner, 262 Broadway, LLC. The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, leading to cross-appeals from both parties. The appellate court ruled that the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should be dismissed as the falling object did not present a 'physically significant elevation differential.' However, it reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim due to questions of fact regarding Industrial Code applicability and reversed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Bonacio Construction, Inc., citing its general authority over the site and potential knowledge of the hazardous condition. The cross-appeals from the order denying reargument were dismissed.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawScaffold SafetyElevation RisksWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityIndustrial Code Violation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2009

Rosario v. Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Center, Ltd.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Montalvo & Son Auto Repair Center, Ltd., from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to confirm a referee's report and partially granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The referee's report found that the plaintiff was injured while employed by the defendant on April 24, 2007, during the course of such employment. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status and injury in the course of employment should have been referred to the Workers' Compensation Board, as it has primary jurisdiction over such determinations. Additionally, the court found that the Supreme Court misapplied the doctrine of inconsistent positions or judicial estoppel because there was no prior legal proceeding where the defendant had successfully argued the plaintiff was its employee. The matter was remitted for a new determination of the plaintiff's cross-motion after resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryEmployment LawJudicial EstoppelPrimary JurisdictionAppellate PracticeSummary JudgmentReferee's ReportKings CountyCourt Procedure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. AUTOZONERS, LLC

Karen Taylor initiated an action against AutoZoners, LLC, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The case involved cross-motions for partial summary judgment concerning the FMLA claim. Taylor, an order selector, sustained a back injury and argued her absences should be protected under FMLA due to a serious health condition. However, the court determined that Taylor failed to provide sufficient evidence of a 'serious health condition,' specifically lacking proof of sustained incapacity or a chronic condition requiring continuous treatment as defined by FMLA regulations. Consequently, the court granted AutoZoners' motion for summary judgment, denied Taylor's cross-motion, and dismissed the FMLA interference and retaliation claims, with the state law claims dismissed without prejudice.

FMLAFamily and Medical Leave ActRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentBack InjuryLumbar StrainSerious Health ConditionIncapacityLight Duty
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 14,224 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