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. 2015 NY Slip Op 09604
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Maggio v. 24 West 57 PFF, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Maggio, a drywall installer, was injured after falling from a scaffold staircase at a premises owned by 24 West 57 APF, LLC and leased by Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY). The scaffold, constructed by Atlantic Hoist & Scaffolding, LLC, had a modified staircase with plywood covering some steps, lacking anti-slip protection and having an irregular rise. Plaintiff attributed his fall to these conditions and the presence of construction debris. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from defendants 24 West and ATNY, citing outstanding discovery, and later denied renewed motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division found 24 West and ATNY justified in bringing the second motion but denied their request for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual questions regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The court also denied plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting ATNY conditional contractual indemnification against R&R, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almeida v. Aguinaga

Plaintiff Elza Almeida sued defendants Carlos and Christina Aguinaga for overtime and “spread-of-hours” pay under the New York Labor Law, specifically for her work as a live-in domestic service employee from 1990 to December 2005. The Aguinagas moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The court analyzed Almeida's claimed working hours, wages, and the applicable meal and lodging allowances under New York regulations. The court concluded that Almeida's claims for overtime pay from May 24, 2000, through December 2004, and for spread-of-hours pay from November 2001, through December 2004, should be dismissed because her total compensation, including allowances, met or exceeded the legally required amounts. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss Almeida’s spread-of-hours claim for the period between May 24, 2000, and June 2001, allowing that specific claim to proceed to trial. Other claims, such as breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, were not addressed in this motion.

Domestic Service EmployeeOvertime PaySpread-of-Hours PayNew York Labor LawMinimum WageMeal and Lodging AllowancesSummary Judgment MotionWage ClaimsEmployment LawWage Order
References
10
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Richardson v. Schenectady City School District

Claimant, a health teacher for Schenectady City School District, sustained compensable head and back injuries in February 2006. In December 2008, he submitted a letter announcing his retirement effective June 2009. Subsequently, the employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought to suspend benefits, arguing the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn and denied benefits after June 24, 2009. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, including an independent medical examination report stating the claimant was capable of modified duty work and the claimant's own testimony that his retirement was not due to disabilities.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketWorkers' Compensation BenefitsModified Duty WorkIndependent Medical ExaminationDisabilityRetirementSchenectady City School DistrictAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceFactual Issue
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jermosen v. Coughlin

This order addresses an incarcerated plaintiff's claims stemming from the New York State Department of Corrections' handling of two misbehavior reports. The court reviews and adopts in part a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. It denies the plaintiff's requests for counsel and various discovery motions. Summary judgment is granted for defendant Coughlin on all claims but denied for defendant Selsky regarding absolute immunity. The court also denies the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint for abusive language, with a strong admonition. However, claims based on alleged threats and harassment, and First Amendment violations at the September 13 hearing, are dismissed or summary judgment granted to defendants. Critically, the court grants the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to clarify due process claims related to the December 24, 1990 hearing and subsequent confinement, his pre-hearing confinement from December 22-24, 1990, and the eighteen-day post-reversal confinement, recognizing sufficient issues of fact to preclude summary judgment on these matters.

Inmate RightsDue ProcessKeeplock ConfinementDisciplinary HearingSummary JudgmentQualified ImmunityAbsolute ImmunityFirst AmendmentCivil RightsPrisoner Litigation
References
27
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05584
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Alvarado v. SC 142 W. 24 LLC

Plaintiff Angel Alvarado, injured in a slip and fall in an excavation pit, appealed an order from the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the original order. The court denied Alvarado's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, ruling that the excavation pit was not a work area contemplated by the Industrial Code. It also dismissed his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding no elevation-related risk. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual disputes. Furthermore, the court conditionally granted the defendants' third-party contractual indemnification claim against Sky Materials, the plaintiff's employer.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationIndustrial CodeExcavation PitSlip and FallAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNegligencePremises Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Long Island Rail Road

The case involves 24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. suing Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) after LIRR canceled its lowest bid for a diesel fuel supply contract and re-bid the contract. 24 Hour sought summary judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing LIRR violated federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 18.36) by not awarding to the lowest bidder. Defendants cross-moved, claiming lack of federal jurisdiction. The court ruled that 24 Hour did not possess a private right of action under the cited federal regulation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Summary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionPrivate Right of ActionContract BiddingProcurement RegulationsFederal Transit Administration (FTA)State Law ClaimsSupplemental JurisdictionGovernment ContractsBid Protest
References
23
Case No. CV-24-1068
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Lynn Pandolfi

The Appellate Division reversed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying counsel fees to Grey & Grey, LLP. The law firm had represented Lynn Pandolfi in her workers' compensation claim but was relieved due to a breakdown in communication. The WCLJ and the Board denied fees, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (3), which they interpreted to preclude fees when a prior attorney is not substituted by new counsel. The Appellate Division clarified that § 24 (3) applies to fee allocation between substituted attorneys and does not bar fees for an un-substituted attorney. The court remitted the matter for the Board to determine fees based on services rendered, considering the claimant's financial state.

Counsel FeesWorkers' Compensation Law § 24Statutory InterpretationAttorney-Client RelationshipSubstitution of CounselWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewRemittalLegal RepresentationUnrepresented Claimant
References
3
Case No. CV-24-0199
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Racquel C. Olivier

Claimant Racquel C. Olivier, a correction officer, sustained work-related injuries in April 2022. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, awarded temporary total disability benefits, and approved counsel fees for claimant's attorney as a lien against the employer's reimbursement award. The employer's carrier challenged the counsel fees, arguing they were improperly placed as a lien against reimbursement without an increase in compensation under Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) (b). The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, holding that the WCLJ's initial awards constituted an increase in compensation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that the initial awards were an increase under WCL § 24 (2) (b), thus justifying the counsel fees as a lien against the carrier's reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation BoardCounsel FeesLienEmployer ReimbursementTemporary Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 24Appellate ReviewProcedural HistoryStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kerbein v. Hutchison

This case discusses a malpractice complaint arising from erroneous tax advice. The court examines the statute of limitations, noting that it is measured from the date the taxpayer receives and relies on the advice. In this instance, the crucial date was December 14, 1999. The malpractice action, filed on December 19, 2002, was deemed timely because the defendants continued to represent the plaintiff until at least December 24, 1999, which involved a Workers’ Compensation Board settlement agreement. The court modified the order, reversing the dismissal of the malpractice cause of action and denying the defendants' motion to dismiss.

MalpracticeTax AdviceStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation BoardLegal RepresentationErroneous Advice
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,168 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