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. 2014 NY Slip Op 05313 [119 AD3d 758]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Perla v. Daytree Custom Builders, Inc.

Milton Perla and his wife initiated an action for personal injuries against Daytree Custom Builders, Inc. after Mr. Perla fell from a roof during employment and received Workers' Compensation benefits. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and sought discovery sanctions or to strike the defendant's Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant was an alter ego of Mr. Perla's employer, which could limit remedies to Workers' Compensation. Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate willful discovery non-compliance and lacked a good faith affirmation for the discovery dispute. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ProcedureRooftop FallEmployer LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tillman v. Triou's Custom Homes, Inc.

Charles Tillman, a truck driver for Phelps Cement Products, Inc., sustained a fractured leg after falling from his flatbed truck while unloading cement blocks at a construction site. He sued Triou’s Custom Homes, Inc. (general contractor) and Zurich Masonry, Inc. (subcontractor) alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted Tillman partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, but this court reversed that decision, concluding that a flatbed truck is not an elevated work surface for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Triou, finding specific Industrial Code violations applicable, but upheld the dismissal of the § 241 (6) claim against Zurich as they were not Triou's agent.

Construction accidentFall from heightFlatbed truckLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial CodeGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor liabilityVicarious liabilityCommon-law indemnification
References
15
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08502
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Eddy v. John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant, John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc., and denying the plaintiff, Mark Eddy's, cross-motion for summary judgment. The case involved a construction worker who was injured after falling from a moving pickup truck while sitting on an unsecured cast iron grate. The court ruled that the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the fall from the truck's tailgate was considered a usual and ordinary danger of a construction site, not an extraordinary elevation hazard. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's decision to ride in a hazardous position on the tailgate, despite being warned, constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby precluding any liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6).

Labor LawWorkplace AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseElevation HazardPickup TruckUnsecured LoadAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
42
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02968
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Kosinski v. Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Zbigniew Kosinski and his wife, commenced an action against defendants Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc. (BMCC), Concordia General Contracting, Inc. (Concordia), and Lynn DeGregorio, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Kosinski after falling from a ladder during carpentry work. The lawsuit alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified this order, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) due to triable issues of fact concerning Kosinski's potential misuse of the ladder. Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against homeowner Lynn DeGregorio, invoking the homeowner's exemption as she did not direct or control the work. However, the denial of summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim against Concordia was affirmed, as Concordia failed to prove lack of supervisory authority.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorStatutory Duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tosha Restaurants, LLC v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Shane A. Fuller was terminated from his part-time dishwasher position at a Denny's Restaurant due to a skin condition (psoriasis and cellulitis). He filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights, alleging disability discrimination. The Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Commissioner of Human Rights found the employer guilty of an unlawful discriminatory practice under Executive Law § 296 and awarded Fuller damages for lost pay, counseling, and pain and suffering. The employer (petitioner) commenced a proceeding to annul this determination. The court reviewed the employer's explanations for termination (customer complaints, health concerns, scheduling issues) and found them to be pretexts for discrimination. The court confirmed the determination of the New York State Division of Human Rights and dismissed the employer's petition.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationPsoriasisCellulitisUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeExecutive LawHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative DeterminationPretext for Discrimination
References
23
Case No. ADJ1083447 (LAO 0872246)
Regular
Mar 04, 2010

FRANKLIN GONZALEZ vs. ARGENT CUSTOM FURNITURE, DCS, UNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUND, CUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLC, CHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant, Franklin Gonzalez, and defendants including Argent Custom Furniture and the Uninsured Employer's Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order denying reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in denying the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDARGENT CUSTOM FURNITUREUNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUNDCUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLCCHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANYADJ1083447LAO 0872246DENYING RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manhattan Steam Bakery, Inc. v. Schindler

This case involves an appeal concerning alleged unlawful secondary boycott activities. The appellant's representatives followed the plaintiff's vehicles to customer locations, threatening picketing if customers did not cease purchasing plaintiff's non-union delivered products. If customers did not comply, they were picketed with signs indicating the store received products delivered by non-union drivers. The dissenting opinion argued these actions constituted an unlawful secondary boycott per se, citing prior cases where similar picketing was enjoined, especially when aimed directly at customers rather than just advertising a union label. The dissent also discussed the applicability of section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act. The final judgment reversed the lower court's decision, dismissed the complaint, and set aside inconsistent findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Secondary BoycottPicketingLabor DisputeUnfair Labor PracticesCoercionInjunctionUnion LabelCivil Practice ActAppellate AuthorityCustomer Patronage
References
5
Case No. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Broad Elm Auto Centers, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The determination that petitioner engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in the conditions of complainant’s employment is supported by substantial evidence. The hearing testimony established that a store manager frequently made derogatory racial comments about the complainant, including referring to him as his 'little nigger slave,' in the presence of customers and co-workers. A compensatory award of $5,000 for mental anguish was found to be supported by the evidence and not excessive. The court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the Administrative Law Judge and Commissioner lacked authority to determine discriminatory practice based on racial slurs, even though the original complaint focused on unlawful termination due to racial discrimination. The Human Rights Law's predominant purpose is to eliminate discrimination in basic opportunities, and it considers racial insults and harassment in employment as unlawful discriminatory practice.

Racial discriminationUnlawful discriminatory practiceEmployment conditionsRacial slursHarassmentMental anguish awardHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate decisionSubstantial evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartman v. Bell

This case involves an appeal concerning a contract for the sale of a medical practice. A plaintiff physician agreed to sell his practice to defendant physicians, with payment contingent on a percentage of industrial medicine income over three years, including a minimum payment, and further payments for six months thereafter. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against them. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the agreement constituted an illegal fee-splitting arrangement under Education Law § 6509-a. The court emphasized that the law would not provide relief to parties involved in illegal arrangements, upholding public policy.

Fee-splittingMedical Practice SaleBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentPublic PolicyIllegal ContractProfessional Medical GroupAppellate DecisionContract Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 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