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. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Detrick v. H & E MACHINERY, INC.

The plaintiff, Sherry Kellogg Detrick, sued her former employer, H & E Machinery, Inc., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII, Equal Pay Act violations, and state law claims including the New York Human Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Detrick contended she endured a hostile work environment and unequal pay compared to her male successor. H & E moved for summary judgment, arguing the Title VII and state law claims were time-barred, and the Equal Pay Act claim lacked a prima facie showing. The court granted H & E's motion, finding Detrick's harassment claims untimely and her Equal Pay Act claim unsupported by sufficient evidence of substantially equal jobs, and declined jurisdiction over the remaining state human rights claim.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineNew York Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentTimeliness of Claims
References
29
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05267 [220 AD3d 882]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2023

Omwathath v. Frank E. Basil, Inc.

Lakhram Omwathath filed an action seeking damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering after the death of the decedent, who was injured while working for Frank E. Basil, Inc. The decedent and subsequently the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, which the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, concluding that the claims against Frank E. Basil, Inc. were barred and no allegations were made against Data Dimensions.

wrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingworkers' compensationmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a)documentary evidenceemployer immunityappellate affirmanceprocedural lawstatutory bar
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1995

Curran v. City of New York

The City of New York, as a defendant third-party plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated September 15, 1995. The original order had granted a motion by third-party defendant E.E. Cruz & Co., Inc. to dismiss the City's claim for common-law indemnification and contribution entirely. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that the dismissal should only apply to common-law indemnification up to the $1,000,000 limit of the Aetna insurance policy. This decision was based on the antisubrogation rule, as Aetna insured both the City and E.E. Cruz under the same policy. The modified order was subsequently affirmed.

Common-law indemnificationContributionAntisubrogation ruleInsurance policy limitsThird-party plaintiffThird-party defendantAppellate reviewPersonal injuries damagesInsurance lawMotion to dismiss
References
1
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06805
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Bordonaro v. E.C. Provini Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Steven Bordonaro, a carpenter for CBI Drywall, was injured unloading a 1000-pound cabinet from a truck with a pallet jack, falling four feet from a liftgate. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's orders, dismissing Labor Law § 241(6) and common-law negligence claims against most defendants. However, triable issues remained for E.C. Provini Co. under Labor Law § 200 regarding its failure to provide a forklift. Conditional contractual indemnification was granted to non-owner defendants from CBI Drywall, and contractual indemnification claims against CBI were reinstated for certain other defendants. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against CBI were dismissed due to workers' compensation and absence of grave injury.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkPallet JackFour-foot FallIndustrial Code ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGrave InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lowe v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

Plaintiff John P. Lowe, appearing pro se, filed a complaint alleging federal and New York state law claims for securities fraud against Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (SSB) and B. Alex Henderson. Lowe claimed that Henderson's recommendations and an SSB broker's advice fraudulently induced him to hold Nortel Networks Corp. stock, resulting in a loss of over $1 million. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, dismissing the federal claims under Sections 9(e), 10(b), 15(c), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as the plaintiff failed to allege a purchase or sale of securities in connection with the alleged misrepresentations, a requirement known as the purchaser-seller rule. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, leading to the dismissal of the entire complaint.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Securities Exchange Act of 1934Rule 10b-5Purchaser-Seller RuleHolding SecuritiesFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of E.E. Austin & Son, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated grain dust and a hose while working on a construction project at a grain silo owned by Nestle Purina Petcare Company. Plaintiff commenced an action against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. Nestle, in turn, filed a third-party action against Austin for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from both Nestle and Austin, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (except for the part based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)). However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Labor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationGrain silo accidentConstruction project injuryTripping hazardPremises liabilitySupervisory controlIndemnity provision
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1992

Lowe v. State

Claimant Ronald Lowe, an inmate, sustained severe injuries at a correctional facility's sawmill due to the State's failure to provide adequate safety measures. He and his wife filed claims, with the Court of Claims finding the State 100% at fault and awarding damages. On appeal, the State argued claimant's negligence and claimants sought increased compensation. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, determining the claimant was not contributorily negligent given the hazardous work conditions and the inadequacy of tools provided. The court also found the damages awarded were appropriate, citing the claimant's prior work history and lack of substantial impact on his earning capacity due to the injury.

Inmate injuryCorrectional facility accidentSawmill accidentWorkplace safetyNegligence of StateDamages assessmentLost earningsComparative negligenceOSHA violationsAppellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 1977

In re Jacqueline E.

This proceeding, initiated by the Commissioner of Social Services, sought a 12-month extension of placement for Jacqueline E., aimed at a trial discharge to her natural mother, Martha Q. The Law Guardian concurrently requested an extension and termination of parental rights for adoption by the foster parents, John and Hazel F. The court acknowledged Jacqueline's desire to remain with her foster parents, as expressed in a psychiatric evaluation and in camera. However, citing the natural mother's rehabilitation and statutory preference for reuniting families, the court extended Jacqueline's placement with the Department of Social Services through December 6, 1978. This extension includes a supervised trial discharge to the natural mother, while denying the Law Guardian's request to terminate parental rights.

Child PlacementFamily ReunificationParental RightsFoster CareTrial DischargeBest Interest of the ChildLaw GuardianSocial Services LawFamily Court ActParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,372 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