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
Jan 03, 1997

Marte v. St. John's University

This case involves an appeal concerning an interlocutory judgment related to a personal injury action. The defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict that favored the third-party defendant on liability. The appellate court examined the principles of indemnification and contribution under Labor Law § 240 (1) and Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, particularly when an owner is found partially at fault. It was determined that the trial court erred by not allowing the apportionment of fault between the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant. Consequently, the interlocutory judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted solely on the issue of proper fault apportionment.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionLabor LawWorkers' Compensation LawApportionment of FaultIndemnificationContributionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
8
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00221
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2024

Bradley v. NYU Langone Hosps.

Plaintiff Nacorra Bradley sued NYU Langone Hospitals and Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC for injuries sustained after slipping on a wet staircase at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) and dismissing comparative fault. It also granted third-party defendant ASR Electrical Contracting, Inc.'s motion to dismiss NYU Langone's contractual indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified the order: denying ASR's motion for summary judgment dismissing NYU Langone's contractual indemnification claim and granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss the comparative fault affirmative defense. The court otherwise affirmed the initial decision, finding that defendants failed to demonstrate dismissal of negligence and Labor Law claims and that triable issues of fact remained regarding Hunter's negligence.

Summary judgmentNegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d)Slippery conditionConstruction site accidentStaircase safetyContractual indemnificationComparative fault
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnhart v. Boss Linco Lines, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the defendant. Plaintiff, a truck driver injured in 1977, received workers’ compensation and no-fault benefits from his employer, the self-insured defendant. After settling a third-party action, plaintiff satisfied a workers' compensation lien for $16,565.27 and sought to be made whole for $20,479.91 in previously offset no-fault benefits. Defendant, relying on a newly effective regulation (11 NYCRR 65.6 (p) (5) (ii) eff. Jan 5, 1981), paid only the net lien amount of $16,565.27. Plaintiff argued for the application of the former regulation to recover the full offset amount. The court held that the present regulation applied as the claim for additional benefits was made after its effective date, affirming the special term's decision.

Workers' Compensation LienNo-Fault Benefits OffsetSummary Judgment AppealRegulatory InterpretationThird-Party SettlementEquitable ApportionmentInsurance Law ApplicationAppellate DivisionEmployer Self-InsuranceStatutory Construction
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dominick v. Charles Millar & Son Co.

Plaintiffs Nicholas Dominick and Lorraine J. Dominick (who later abandoned her claim) commenced an action against Millar defendants for injuries sustained by Nicholas Dominick due to asbestos exposure. A jury found that products supplied by the Millar defendants caused Nicholas Dominick's asbestos exposure due to their failure to warn, and that this failure substantially contributed to his injuries. The Millar defendants appealed the judgment, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation, the preclusion of certain witnesses, and the jury's apportionment of fault and the damages awarded. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding there was sufficient evidence for causation, no abuse of discretion in witness preclusion, and the jury's findings on fault and damages were reasonable.

Asbestos exposureToxic tortProduct liabilityFailure to warnCausationSpecific causationJury verdictAppellate reviewSufficiency of evidenceWitness preclusion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 1998

Sellars v. Redondo

The plaintiff, Catherine Sellars, allegedly slipped and fell on ice on a public sidewalk in front of a store owned by the defendant. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment and, upon a jury verdict, found the defendant 100% at fault, awarding the plaintiff $165,000. The defendant appealed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint. The court determined that the defendant had established prima facie entitlement to judgment, and the plaintiffs failed to submit evidence raising a triable issue of fact regarding liability, ruling that mere hope of future evidence was insufficient to postpone a decision on summary judgment.

Personal InjurySlip and FallIce AccidentPublic SidewalkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligencePrima Facie EvidenceCPLRDismissal of Complaint
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saddle Brook Surgicenter, LLC v. All State Insurance

Plaintiff, a medical service provider and assignee of Hector Flores, initiated an action against defendant, an insurer, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for medical services provided. The claim was for $11,778, of which defendant paid $1,629.75, denying the balance on the grounds that the billing exceeded the New Jersey fee schedule. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that a recent amendment to 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 made the defense of billing above the fee schedule non-waivable, regardless of the timeliness of its denial. The court agreed, holding that 11 NYCRR 65-3.8 (g) (1) (ii) abrogates prior case law, allowing insurers to assert fee schedule defenses even if the denial was not issued within 30 days. Consequently, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff's claim with prejudice.

No-Fault InsuranceSummary JudgmentMedical Billing DisputesFee ScheduleOut-of-State ProvidersInsurance LawRegulatory InterpretationTimeliness of DenialNon-Waivable DefenseNew York Regulations
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2008

Westchester Medical Center v. Lincoln General Insurance

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to recover no-fault medical benefits. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the plaintiff's motion. The plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case by showing that statutory billing forms were mailed and received, and the defendant failed to either pay or deny the claim within the 30-day period. The court rejected the defendant's arguments that letters advising of an investigation tolled the statutory period and that the period was tolled pending a no-fault application. Additionally, defenses related to Workers' Compensation benefits or the assignor's failure to appear at an examination under oath were found insufficient to defeat the medical provider's right to benefits.

no-fault insurancemedical benefitssummary judgmentinsurance contractstatutory periodtimely denialworkers' compensationpolicy conditionpreclusion remedyappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2008

LMK Psychological Service, P.C. v. American Transit Insurance

The plaintiffs, as assignees of no-fault benefits, sought to recover for health services rendered to beneficiaries of the defendant’s no-fault insurance contracts. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss several causes of action, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 because the injuries occurred during employment. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its original decision. The appellate court modified this determination, vacating the dismissal of those causes of action. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new determination after the Workers’ Compensation Board makes a finding on the parties’ rights under the Workers’ Compensation Law, emphasizing the Board's primary jurisdiction over such factual issues.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsuranceMedical PaymentsSummary JudgmentPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewRemittalInsurance LawAutomobile AccidentJurisdictional Dispute
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03497 [206 AD3d 620]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2022

Everett v. CMI Servs. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ron Everett, sustained personal injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated water and feces in an employee break room at his workplace. Defendants, including CMI Services Corp., Omni New York, LLC, and Plaza Residences, LLP, moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses such as inherent job hazard, open and obvious condition, and employer protection under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was not engaged in his cleaning duties at the time of the fall, the dangerous condition was not proven to be non-inherently dangerous despite being open and obvious (due to hidden feces), and the defendants failed to establish an alter ego or special employer relationship to invoke Workers' Compensation Law immunity. The court concluded that the defendants did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law NegligenceOpen and Obvious ConditionInherent Job HazardWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Alter Ego DoctrineSpecial EmployerAppellate Review
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 15,650 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