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. No. 91
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2022

Dora Howell v. City of New York

Dora Howell sued the City of New York and two police officers for negligence after her ex-boyfriend, who had multiple orders of protection against him, brutally attacked and pushed her from a third-floor window. Howell alleged that the defendants failed to provide her with sufficient protection, despite repeated calls about her ex-boyfriend violating the orders. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Howell failed to prove the defendants owed her a 'special duty' of care. The majority found no triable issue of fact regarding Howell's justifiable reliance on the police's affirmative undertaking, stating that the mere existence of an order of protection does not, by itself, establish such reliance. Dissenting judges argued that the Domestic Violence Intervention Act (DVIA) established a statutory special duty requiring mandatory arrests for order of protection violations, and that Howell had raised triable issues of fact concerning police control over a dangerous situation and justifiable reliance.

Negligence actionSpecial duty rulePolice protection liabilityOrder of protection violationDomestic violenceGovernmental immunityJustifiable relianceSummary judgmentAppellate reviewMandatory arrest laws
References
69
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 02068 [126 AD3d 537]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2015

Matter of State of New York Off. of Mental Health v. Dennis J.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order committing Dennis J. to a secure treatment facility after findings of mental abnormality and dangerousness as a sex offender. The court upheld the Supreme Court's decision to permit an expert to testify about an email from a social worker treating Dennis J., rejecting arguments regarding HIPAA and due process as unpreserved or without merit. It found the expert testimony reliable and its probative value outweighed potential prejudice, with the jury properly instructed. The decision underscores the court's discretion in admitting expert testimony in civil commitment proceedings.

Mental Health LawSex OffenderCivil CommitmentExpert TestimonyHIPAADue ProcessAppellate ReviewMental AbnormalityDangerous Sex OffenderEvidentiary Rules
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07357
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Matter of Kathleen NN. (Dennis NN.)

This case involves three neglect proceedings initiated by the Sullivan County Department of Family Services and the Attorney for the Child against Dennis NN. (father), Justin EE. (mother's boyfriend), and Angelica FF. (mother) concerning Kathleen NN., an alleged neglected child. The Family Court of Sullivan County initially dismissed all three petitions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal concerning Dennis NN., finding that his actions of dropping the child during an altercation placed her in imminent danger of harm, thus granting the neglect petition against him and remitting the matter for a dispositional hearing. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissals against Justin EE. and Angelica FF., concluding that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect or that Justin EE. was a legal custodian at the time of the incident, and that the mother's conduct did not demonstrate imminent danger to the child.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActImminent DangerParental ResponsibilitySafety Plan Non-ComplianceAppellate DivisionChild CustodyPreponderance of EvidencePhysical AltercationChild Protective Report
References
17
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03627 [229 AD3d 1116]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2024

Dennis v. Cerrone

Plaintiff Joseph Dennis, an appellant, was injured after falling through an unguarded hole while working on a residential construction project for defendant Vincent Cerrone. He commenced an action against Cerrone and Mark Cerrone, Inc. (MCI), asserting causes of action for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The case involved several appeals and a retrial, with the Supreme Court ultimately rendering a verdict in favor of MCI and dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the order, concluding that the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. The court found that MCI did not possess the authority to enforce safety standards or direct and supervise the plaintiff's work, despite some evidence suggesting its involvement in the project.

Construction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsCommon-law NegligenceAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialSummary JudgmentDirected VerdictWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationsSite Superintendent
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2012

Jemine v. Dennis

This case concerns a lawsuit brought by multiple employees against their employer, Raven P.D. Dennis, III, and related entities, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law regarding unpaid wages and overtime compensation. The defendants failed to participate in the litigation, leading to a default judgment on liability. Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go issued a report and recommendation on damages, which was subsequently reviewed by District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf. The District Court largely adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, granting the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and damages. The final award included unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesDefault JudgmentEmployment LawJudicial Review
References
87
Case No. CV-22-1999
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Dennis Schuette

Claimant Dennis Schuette appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled he was not entitled to a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for a right wrist injury. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that medical permanency opinions from orthopedic surgeons Serge Menkin and Vito Loguidice, both suggesting a 73⅓% SLU, were not credible. This was due to the claimant's failure to disclose his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis, testing, and treatment during their examinations. The Board concluded that Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) was not clearly established, making any SLU determination premature, and that the relationship between the carpal tunnel syndrome and the 2019 wrist injury remained unclear. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Schedule Loss of UseMaximum Medical ImprovementCarpal Tunnel SyndromeIndependent Medical ExaminationCredibility of Medical TestimonyWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate DivisionRight Wrist InjuryOccupational Disease ClaimUndisclosed Medical Information
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1992

Dennis v. Beltrone Construction Co.

Joseph Dennis, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while installing sheetrock on a building project in Albany County. He sued Corporate Woods Partners and Beltrone Construction Company, Inc., the owner and general contractor. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment to Dennis on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendants' cross-motion for contractual and common-law indemnity against the third-party defendant (Dennis' employer). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the defendants absolutely liable for failing to provide adequate safety equipment and upholding their overall responsibility for safety on the project. The court also noted factual issues regarding the defendants' own negligence, which precluded their indemnity claim.

Ladder FallConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityOwner LiabilitySafety Equipment FailureElevation-Related Risk
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2006

Kajo v. E.W. Howell Co.

The plaintiffs, Ilia Kajo and his wife, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning personal injuries Kajo sustained while working on a construction site. The Supreme Court had denied their cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability against defendants E.W. Howell Co., Inc. and Norwegian Christian Home and Health Center, and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss Labor Law § 240(1) against them and Labor Law § 200 against Howell. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Kajo's injuries did not arise from an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240(1) and that Howell did not exercise sufficient supervisory control to be liable under Labor Law § 200.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation-Related RiskSupervisory ControlGeneral ContractorBuilding OwnerMeans and Methods of WorkCommon Law Duty
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07114 [165 AD3d 1090]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

McDonnell v. Sandaro Realty, Inc.

Matthew McDonnell was injured in a construction accident when a scaffold plank broke. He and his wife sued Sandaro Realty, Inc. (owner) and E.W. Howell Co., LLC (general contractor) for negligence and Labor Law violations. Howell then initiated a third-party action against subcontractors Bay Structures, Inc. (McDonnell's employer) and J&R Brick Masonry, Inc. (scaffold owner). The Supreme Court's order dated May 26, 2015, was appealed and cross-appealed by multiple parties regarding summary judgment motions on various claims including Labor Law violations, common-law negligence, spoliation of evidence, contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, and breach of contract to procure insurance. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to plaintiffs on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Sandaro, granting Bay Structures summary judgment on common-law indemnification and contribution, denying J&R Brick Masonry's motion for summary judgment, denying several conditional summary judgment motions for indemnification by Sandaro and Howell, and modifying the spoliation sanction against Howell to an adverse inference charge instead of striking pleadings.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law ViolationsSummary JudgmentSpoliation of EvidenceIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationBreach of Contract
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05955 [174 AD3d 850]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Davies v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Gerald Davies, was injured while pushing a cart of concrete over a plywood sheet that covered a hole at a construction site. He initiated an action against the premises operator, Simon Property Group, Inc., the general contractor, E.W. Howell Co., LLC, and the sidewalk removal company, Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). E.W. Howell Co., LLC also filed a third-party action against Allstate Interior Demolition Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's initial order, which partially granted and denied various summary judgment motions, was subject to appeals and cross-appeals. The Appellate Division ultimately reversed the order in part, granting Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and denying Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion concerning Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationElevation DifferentialScaffold LawIndustrial CodeSafe Work Environment
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 150 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