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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 5 v. Hudson Valley District Council Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Joint Benefit Funds

This case concerns the authority of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen to appoint trustees to employee benefit (ERISA) funds, displacing previously appointed trustees from superseded local union entities. The International Union merged local entities into a new Local 5 and appointed Emil Parietti, Jr. as its President, granting him authority to appoint trustees. A previously appointed trustee declined to be replaced, causing a dispute where the new Local 5 has fewer than its authorized number of trustees on the ERISA funds. The court found that the International Union has the ultimate authority in such matters and that the continued service of trustees against the appointing authority's wishes causes irreparable injury. While the plaintiffs' specific request for an injunction was deemed too broad, the court determined that the requirements for a preliminary injunction placing Mr. Parietti's designee were met. The court directed the parties to seek settlement and ordered the defendants to show cause why such a preliminary injunction should not be entered.

International Trade UnionsLabor Management Relations ActERISAEmployee Benefit FundsTrustee AppointmentUnion Internal StructureLocal Union MergerPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. ADJ9376675
Regular
Oct 20, 2015

JESSICA FIELD vs. INGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENT, ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged the permanent disability rating, arguing the DRE method, rather than the ROM method, was improperly applied by the QME. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the QME's reliance on the DRE method, specifically Category IV, was supported by substantial medical evidence and properly applied under the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition. The defendant's contention that the rating was invalid under *Blackledge* was also rejected, as the QME report met legal and regulatory requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDINGLEWOOD POLICE DEPARTMENTADMINSUREPermanent DisabilityAMA Guides Fifth EditionDRE MethodLumbar Spine Category IVwhole person impairment
References
2
Case No. ADJ7818660
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

Darin White vs. Whole Foods, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration of a decision denying attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5. The applicant argued that fees were warranted because a penalty award for delayed temporary disability benefits followed an initial award of temporary disability. The majority denied reconsideration, agreeing with the prior ruling that fees under section 5814.5 are only awarded for enforcing compensation that has already been awarded. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that the statute should be interpreted more broadly to allow fees when a defendant delays payment of any benefit within an awarded category, even if not specifically quantified in the initial award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order DenyingAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814.5Temporary Disability IndemnityPenalty AwardAgreed Medical ExaminerPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorTreating Physician
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1992

Andrialis v. Snyder

The jury returned a verdict in favor of the infant plaintiff against three defendants, awarding significant damages for pain and suffering and future expenses. Defendants moved to reduce awards for pain and suffering and therapies as excessive, while the plaintiff sought to increase medical expenses as inadequate. The court granted these motions, leading to stipulated adjustments in all disputed damage categories. The opinion further details the intricate post-verdict calculations for attorney's fees and the present value of future awards, setting a 5.5% discount rate. Additionally, the judge affirmed the permissibility of economist testimony on inflation and growth factors and declined to deduct collateral sources for therapies due to insufficient certainty of their provision.

Damage CalculationAttorney's FeesStructured SettlementsCPLR Article 50-ADiscount RateInflation FactorsGrowth FactorsCollateral SourcesMedical ExpensesPain and Suffering
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05741
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Petesic v. Fox 5 N.Y.

Claimant Julie Petesic, a makeup artist, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits related to contracting Bartonella bacteria at work. She alleged exposure to dead rodents and their droppings, but the Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially denied the claim, which the Board upheld, finding no causal link between employment and the disease. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant failed to fully disclose her travel history to Croatia, which impacted the reliability of the physician's causation opinion. Consequently, the Board's determination, supported by substantial evidence, that the claimant failed to establish her Bartonella claim was upheld.

Workers' CompensationBartonellaCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceTravel HistoryCredibilityAppellate ReviewOccupational DiseaseToxicologyExposure
References
11
Case No. 5
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. WOR RADIO

The case concerns Edward Walsh's breach of contract claim against WOR Radio a/k/a Buckley Broadcasting Company (BBC) for wrongful termination of employment in violation of an oral contract. BBC moved to dismiss the action or stay proceedings pending arbitration, citing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court determined that if an oral contract existed, it likely incorporated an arbitration clause from a prior written agreement. Furthermore, the court found that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) applied to Walsh as a program host and mandated arbitration. Emphasizing federal policy favoring arbitration, the court granted BBC's motion to dismiss.

ArbitrationEmployment ContractWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementOral ContractRadio Program HostMotion to Dismiss
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 1,445 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