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

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05832
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2019

Matter of Markolovic v. MTA Bus Eastchester Depot

Nika Markolovic, a bus driver, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits alleging hearing loss due to prolonged work noise. The self-insured employer argued the claim was time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a point claimant's attorney conceded. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim. Claimant then sought review by the Workers' Compensation Board, contending for the first time that the claim was timely under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb. The Board denied review, citing claimant's failure to interpose a specific objection or exception to the WCLJ's ruling as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (4) (v). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to review the WCLJ's decision given claimant's failure to raise the specific argument regarding Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb before the WCLJ.

Workers' Compensation LawHearing Loss ClaimStatute of LimitationsAdministrative ReviewObjection RequirementWCLJ DecisionAppellate ReviewTimeliness of ClaimNew York RegulationsBoard Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Matter of Romero v. Capital Concrete

In this Workers' Compensation case, claimant Tunin Romero sustained injuries, leading to a claim for benefits. The employer, Capital Concrete, and its carrier, Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, failed to file a First Report of Injury or notice of controversy. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim and found the carrier liable. The carrier's application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied for non-compliance with regulatory requirements (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b] [4] [v]). The Board also affirmed the WCLJ's denial of the carrier's request for further development of the record on the employer-employee relationship issue. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing the carrier's failure to object at the initial hearing and its unexplained absence.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureAdministrative ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipNotice of ControversyFailure to AppearAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewClaim EstablishmentRegulatory Compliance
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01879 [181 AD3d 1132]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Abdiyev v. Eagle Container Corp.

Claimant, David Abdiyev, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had denied his application for administrative review of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) decision disallowing his claim for work-related injuries, specifically to bilateral shoulders, left elbow, left hand, bilateral knees, left hip, neck, head, and back. The denial was based on Abdiyev's failure to interpose an objection to the WCLJ's decision on the record, as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (4) (v). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the regulation was consistent with Workers' Compensation Law § 23 and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining review.

Workers' Compensation LawAdministrative ReviewWCLJ DecisionObjection RequirementAppellate ProcedureBoard RegulationsCredibility FindingMedical EvidenceClaim DisallowanceJudiciary Law
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09080 [178 AD3d 1272]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Matter of Bruscino v. Verizon, N.Y.

Claimant Michael Bruscino, a field technician, sustained a work-related lower back injury in 2010 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability in 2012. In 2018, the employer requested a hearing regarding Bruscino's loss of wage-earning capacity, where a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined a 65% loss and set the benefits cap commencement date as February 13, 2012. The employer's subsequent application for Board review was denied due to their failure to object on the record and improper form submission. Bruscino appealed the Board's decision, but the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Bruscino's attorney failed to interpose a specific objection or exception at the hearing to the WCLJ's ruling regarding the durational cap on benefits, as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (4) (v).

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityAdministrative ReviewProcedural ComplianceObjection RuleBenefits CapAppellate ProcedureBoard ReviewWCLJ DecisionJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. 189 AD3d 1841
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Dimaggio v. Mayrch Excavation Found.

Claimant Ottavio Dimaggio, an Italian-speaking carpenter, sustained a back injury in a 2014 accident, leading to a workers' compensation claim. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) classified him with a permanent partial disability and a 96% loss of wage-earning capacity. Dimaggio sought review from the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing for total disability, but his application was denied due to the Board's finding that his general exception to the WCLJ's oral findings did not meet the "specific objection or exception" requirement of 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (4) (v). The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, holding that counsel's repeated "noting an exception," viewed in context with Dimaggio's confusion, was sufficiently specific. The court concluded the Board abused its discretion in denying the application and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Workers' Compensation BoardPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityApplication for ReviewSpecific ObjectionProcedural ComplianceAppellate DivisionAbuse of DiscretionRemittalOral Findings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 1995

Wood v. Irving

A Rochester police officer, temporarily assigned as a detective for over 18 months, was granted a permanent appointment to detective based on Civil Service Law § 58 (4) (c). The City of Rochester challenged this, arguing the law violated the New York Constitution's article V, § 6, which requires merit-based appointments by competitive examination where practicable. The Supreme Court granted the officer's petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that Civil Service Law § 58 (4) (c) is unconstitutional because it mandates a permanent appointment without a legislative determination of the impracticability of competitive testing, thus violating the constitutional merit and fitness requirement. The Court held that despite good intentions, the statute effectively allowed a preferential appointment, circumventing the competitive examination process applicable to others seeking the detective rank.

Civil Service LawConstitutional LawMerit and Fitness ClauseCompetitive ExaminationPolice PromotionDetective AppointmentLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewImpracticability of TestingArticle V Section 6
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 20,660 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