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. 2020 NY Slip Op 06471 [188 AD3d 507]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Sunun v. Klein

Plaintiff Enrique Sunun was injured when he stepped into an unguarded, improperly backfilled trench at a construction site, causing his leg to sink deeply. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order regarding several Labor Law and negligence claims. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as no safety devices were provided to protect him from the gravity-related risk. Additionally, the court granted Beth Klein unconditional contractual indemnification from Cedar Design, Inc., and Fountainhead Construction Inc. conditional indemnification, while denying Fountainhead's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it. The hazardous condition of the trench, exacerbated by rainfall, was central to the claims.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationTrench CollapseConstruction AccidentGravity-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationsCommon-Law NegligenceAppellate DivisionThird-Party Claims
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1984

Klein v. Jamor Purveyors, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the enforceability of an alleged oral modification to a written corporate shareholders' agreement. The original agreement, between Jack Klein (decedent), Michael Jacobson, and Jamor Purveyors, Inc., stipulated a $55,000 buy-out price for a deceased shareholder's stock. The plaintiff, as executrix of Klein's estate, claimed an oral agreement increased this buy-out price to $155,000. Special Term dismissed the claims, asserting the oral modification was barred by the Statute of Frauds and a clause in the original agreement requiring written modifications. The Appellate Court affirmed this decision, ruling that the alleged oral agreement fell within the Statute of Frauds and that the plaintiff's arguments regarding memoranda, partial performance, and equitable estoppel were insufficient to satisfy the statute or overcome its provisions. The court also upheld the interpretation that the agreement's modification clause precluded oral changes.

oral agreementStatute of Fraudsshareholders' agreementcorporate buy-outcontract modificationpart performanceequitable estoppelAppellate DivisionCPLRGeneral Obligations Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp.

The plaintiffs, Candace Curtis and Heather Curtis, appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The first order denied their motion to amend the complaint to add fraud-based causes of action, and the second denied their motion for leave to reargue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order denying reargument, as such orders are not appealable. However, the court modified the August 3, 2001, order by granting infant plaintiff Candace Curtis leave to assert causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. This decision was based on the principle that fraud can exist even when misrepresentations are made to a third party (the mother) but result in injury to the plaintiff (the infant). The court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend for Heather Curtis on statute of limitations grounds related to her negligence claims.

Personal InjuryFraudulent MisrepresentationConstructive FraudFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationPrenatal InjuriesFetusEmployer LiabilityStatute of LimitationsAmendment of Complaint
References
37
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04714 [140 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Matter of Klein v. Pereira

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Abraham Klein to confirm an arbitration award dated March 31, 2009. John S. Pereira, as Bankruptcy Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Christine Persaud, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the petition to confirm the award and denied his motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, concluding that the appellant failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitrator had exceeded their power. The court noted that the arbitration clause was broad, granting the arbitrator authority to resolve 'any business dispute.'

arbitration awardCPLR article 75vacate arbitrationconfirm arbitrationarbitrator's powerappellate reviewKings Countybusiness disputebankruptcy trusteeagreement terms
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Klein v. Hurd Sales Co.

In 1973, the claimant filed for death benefits for herself and her four minor children following her husband's death. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the death work-related and awarded benefits, noting that one child, Tammy Joi Klein, was handicapped. The employer and carrier appealed, but the Board affirmed. Later, after Tammy turned 18, the Aggregate Trust Fund discontinued her benefits. The Board reopened the case, found Tammy totally disabled, and directed the carrier to make an additional deposit into the Aggregate Trust Fund. The appellants challenged this, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (3) for discharge of liability, but the court found this inapplicable due to modification of the original award. The court also rejected claims of laches against the Aggregate Trust Fund and affirmed the Board's finding of permanent total disablement, despite the appellants' contention that it was not explicitly stated as 'permanent' in the initial finding.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHandicapped DependentAggregate Trust FundEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier DischargePermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 27Workers' Compensation Law § 16Actuarial Computation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. A.D. Development Ltd.

Frank Klein's motion to consolidate action numbers 1 and 2 was granted without opposition. Defendant Kala Zaveri, also president of A.D. Development Ltd., filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the consolidated action, arguing she was exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as an owner of a single-family dwelling. However, the court denied her motion, finding that the dwelling was part of a commercial enterprise intended for resale, not personal use. The court reasoned that the homeowner's exemption did not apply to commercial developers, emphasizing the statute's intent to place responsibility for worker safety on those best suited to provide such safeguards.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Homeowner ExemptionCommercial EnterpriseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyConsolidated ActionDeveloper LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05362 [220 AD3d 568]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2023

Matter of Baby Girl G. (Curtis M. R.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order that granted the Administration for Children's Services' (ACS) motion for summary judgment, finding respondents Curtis M.R., Jr., and Tinesha G. derivatively neglected Baby Girl G. The court found ACS established a prima facie case based on prior neglect findings concerning the parents' older children, including their placement in foster care and termination of parental rights, and the parents' failure to ameliorate conditions. The Family Court properly took judicial notice of its own orders. The Appellate Division rejected appellants' objections to the Family Court's consideration of unsworn affidavits, citing sufficient other evidence and the appellants' failure to raise the objection below.

Derivative NeglectChild NeglectFamily CourtAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentFoster CareParental RightsJudicial NoticeUnsworn AffidavitsProcedural Objection
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Radioshack Corp.

Plaintiff Jennifer Curtis filed a discrimination charge against RadioShack Corporation alleging pregnancy-based sex discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Her charge was filed 342 days after her termination, exceeding the 300-day statutory limit. Curtis sought equitable tolling, arguing that the Dutchess County Human Rights Commission (DCHCR) misled her and lost her file. However, the court found that DCHCR explicitly stated it did not investigate complaints and that Curtis lacked reasonable diligence in following up for over seven months. Consequently, the court denied equitable tolling and granted RadioShack's motion to dismiss Curtis's First, Second, and Third causes of action as time-barred. Surviving claims exist under New York State Human Rights Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, and New York State Labor Law.

Equitable tollingTitle VIIDiscriminationPregnancy discriminationTimelinessStatute of LimitationsFederal courtDutchess CountyHuman Rights CommissionEEOC
References
13
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00322 [190 AD3d 876]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2021

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Klein

The plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., initiated a subrogation action to recoup damages paid to its insureds following a vehicle accident. The case involved a third-party action where defendants/third-party plaintiffs Traci B. Klein and Marie A. Michel sought indemnification from Recco Health Corporation et al., arguing Recco was Michel's employer under the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP) and therefore vicariously liable. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted Recco's motion for summary judgment, concluding Michel was not their employee for vicarious liability purposes. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that CDPAP regulations do not grant fiscal intermediaries control over caregivers' methods, a key factor in determining an employer-employee relationship for vicarious liability.

SubrogationVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentMedicaid ProgramConsumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP)Fiscal IntermediaryEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate DivisionProperty Damage
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. New York University

Plaintiff April Klein sued New York University (NYU) for employment discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. Klein, a professor at NYU's Stern School of Business, alleged gender discrimination regarding promotion, unfavorable teaching schedules, office assignments, housing requests, and unequal pay. The court granted NYU's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Klein's disparate treatment and retaliation claims as time-barred or lacking sufficient evidence of adverse employment action or discriminatory intent. However, the court denied summary judgment for Klein's Equal Pay Act claim, finding she presented a prima facie case and NYU's defense of pay disparity based on seniority or merit lacked sufficient evidence to be decided summarily.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSummary JudgmentAcademic PromotionUniversity EmploymentRetaliation ClaimWage DisparityFaculty Rights
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 97 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