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
Dec 01, 1999

Miller v. Long Island Rail Road

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for personal injuries. The defendant, Long Island Rail Road, and third-party defendants, Gary Nobile and Joseph Miller, appealed various aspects of the jury's verdict from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The appellate court modified the judgment by vacating the awards for past and future pain and suffering. It ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a significant reduction in the awarded amounts for pain and suffering. If the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced damages, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, otherwise, a new trial on those causes of action will proceed.

Personal InjuryDamagesJury VerdictAppealPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesLost EarningsContributionSufficiency of EvidenceConsistency of Verdicts
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chelli v. Banle Associates, LLC

This appellate decision from the Supreme Court, Queens County, addresses an action for personal injuries where the defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict. Key issues included whether the plaintiff sustained a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, impacting common-law indemnification, and the excessiveness of damages for future pain and suffering. The court, applying a new interpretation of "permanent total disability" from Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., modified the judgment to grant common-law indemnification against the plaintiff's employer. Additionally, the damages award for future pain and suffering was deemed excessive, leading to a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced amount.

Personal InjuryGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawCommon-Law IndemnificationPermanent Total DisabilityFuture Pain and SufferingDamages ReductionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewBrain Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2002

Machado v. City of New York

The defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding damages for personal injuries. The case involved a construction worker who sustained severe injuries, including a spinal fracture and knee destruction, after a trench wall collapse in 1996, for which he obtained summary judgment against the City under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's inadequate verdict on damages, ordering a new trial unless the City agreed to increased awards for past and future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, agreeing that the jury's award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. This decision upholds the conditional directive for a new trial on damages.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseLabor LawDamagesPain and SufferingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialSpinal Fracture
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamur Productions Corp. v. Quill

This case involves multiple actions seeking damages from labor unions following the 1966 New York City transit strike. The defendants, referred to as "the Unions," moved for dismissal of all complaints due to legal insufficiency. Plaintiffs asserted various claims, including intentional violation of the Condon-Wadlin Act and a court injunction, prima facie tort, and breaches of human rights and contractual theories. The court granted the defendants' motions, ruling that the Condon-Wadlin Act does not create a private right of action for damages. It further determined that the alleged damages were too remote and indirect to sustain claims of prima facie tort, and that claims based on human rights declarations, stock diminution, and contract were without merit. The decision emphasizes that remedies for the general public regarding public employee strikes must originate from legislative action rather than judicial adjudication.

Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor UnionsCondon-Wadlin ActPrima Facie TortStatutory InterpretationCivil LiabilityRemote DamagesInjunction ViolationCollective Bargaining
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Jackson v. Lindner

This case involves a class action lawsuit brought by professional and business entities in Manhattan against various unions and their officers, including the Transport Workers Union (TWU), Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), and George Link. The plaintiffs sought damages resulting from an 11-day mass transit strike in April 1980 in New York City. The complaint asserted causes of action based on prima facie tort, public nuisance, and third-party beneficiary breach of contract. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the prima facie tort and public nuisance claims, concluding that illegal public employee strikes could give rise to private causes of action for damages. However, the motion to dismiss the third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim was granted, as the court found the collective bargaining agreement did not primarily intend to benefit the public to allow private enforcement for consequential damages.

Mass Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor DisputePrima Facie TortPublic NuisanceDamagesClass ActionMotion to DismissTaylor LawUnion Liability
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fresco v. 157 East 72nd Street Condominium

A laborer sustained an eye injury on a construction site. The jury initially found the general contractor liable under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 241 (6), awarding substantial damages. The Supreme Court judgment also directed the plaintiff's employer to indemnify the general contractor. On appeal, the court modified the judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's common-law negligence claim due to lack of evidence of the general contractor's fault. The court found the general contractor's liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) to be purely vicarious, entitling it to both contractual and common-law indemnification from the employer, as the plaintiff suffered a grave injury. The appellate court also set aside the damages verdict, directing a new trial on damages only, unless the plaintiff stipulated to a reduction in the awards for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses. Additionally, appeals concerning the resettlement of judgment and renewal of summary judgment motions were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor LawVicarious LiabilityIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEye InjuryWorkers' CompensationGrave Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic-Pacific Manufacturing Corp. v. Quinnonez

The employer sued two unions for damages and a permanent injunction, alleging a conspiracy to harm its business through unlawful picketing and other coercive acts. The unions engaged in continuous and often violent conduct, including physical altercations, obstruction of deliveries, and harassment, to pressure the employer despite one union lacking majority representation. The court found that the unions' actions, particularly the Seafarers', had an unlawful objective of coercing employees into joining the union, a violation of state labor law and the state constitution. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting all picketing and associated unlawful conduct by both defendant unions due to the pervasive violence. However, the claim for damages against the union officers was dismissed because the complaint failed to allege that individual union members authorized or ratified the tortious acts.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful CoercionUnion LiabilityDamages DismissedState ConstitutionLabor LawCivil Practice ActEmployer Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1987

Bulson v. 1929 Associates

The plaintiff, a roofer, suffered severe burns after falling through a skylight due to a lack of safety devices. The Supreme Court, Rockland County, granted judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and awarded $350,000 in damages, also granting indemnification to defendants third-party plaintiffs. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial on damages was granted unless the defendants third-party plaintiffs and third-party defendants agree to increase the award to $500,000, upon which the judgment, as amended, would be affirmed. The plaintiff was awarded costs.

Personal InjuryRoofing AccidentSkylight FallLabor Law § 240(1)Premises LiabilityNegligenceIndemnificationDamages AppealInadequate AwardConditional Reversal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feldin v. Doty

This case concerns an appeal regarding a construction contract dispute. The plaintiff initiated an action for the balance due for electrical, plumbing, and heating system installation, while the defendants counterclaimed, alleging unworkmanlike performance. The County Court initially ruled in favor of the defendants on their counterclaim. Upon review, the appellate court modified the County Court's damages determination. The appellate court found that while the plaintiff was owed $8,005.65, the defendants only proved $2,809.02 in damages for their counterclaim. Consequently, the final judgment was modified to be in the plaintiff's favor for $5,196.63, and the order was affirmed as modified.

Construction ContractDamagesCounterclaimAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialWorkmanlike PerformanceProof of DamagesContract DisputeJudgment ModificationEvidence Sufficiency
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,990 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