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. 2024 NY Slip Op 03627 [229 AD3d 1116]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2024

Dennis v. Cerrone

Plaintiff Joseph Dennis, an appellant, was injured after falling through an unguarded hole while working on a residential construction project for defendant Vincent Cerrone. He commenced an action against Cerrone and Mark Cerrone, Inc. (MCI), asserting causes of action for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The case involved several appeals and a retrial, with the Supreme Court ultimately rendering a verdict in favor of MCI and dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the order, concluding that the verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence. The court found that MCI did not possess the authority to enforce safety standards or direct and supervise the plaintiff's work, despite some evidence suggesting its involvement in the project.

Construction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsCommon-law NegligenceAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialSummary JudgmentDirected VerdictWeight of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationsSite Superintendent
References
9
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 02068 [126 AD3d 537]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2015

Matter of State of New York Off. of Mental Health v. Dennis J.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order committing Dennis J. to a secure treatment facility after findings of mental abnormality and dangerousness as a sex offender. The court upheld the Supreme Court's decision to permit an expert to testify about an email from a social worker treating Dennis J., rejecting arguments regarding HIPAA and due process as unpreserved or without merit. It found the expert testimony reliable and its probative value outweighed potential prejudice, with the jury properly instructed. The decision underscores the court's discretion in admitting expert testimony in civil commitment proceedings.

Mental Health LawSex OffenderCivil CommitmentExpert TestimonyHIPAADue ProcessAppellate ReviewMental AbnormalityDangerous Sex OffenderEvidentiary Rules
References
7
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
Sep 11, 2012

Jemine v. Dennis

This case concerns a lawsuit brought by multiple employees against their employer, Raven P.D. Dennis, III, and related entities, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law regarding unpaid wages and overtime compensation. The defendants failed to participate in the litigation, leading to a default judgment on liability. Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go issued a report and recommendation on damages, which was subsequently reviewed by District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf. The District Court largely adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, granting the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and damages. The final award included unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesDefault JudgmentEmployment LawJudicial Review
References
87
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. 2019 NY Slip Op 07261 [176 AD3d 824]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2019

Matter of Nieves v. Nieves

This case involves a child custody dispute between Nicole Nieves (mother) and Dennis Nieves (father), stemming from two related proceedings under Family Court Act article 6. The mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which denied her petition for sole legal and physical custody and instead granted the father's petition. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that the record provided a sound and substantial basis for awarding the father sole custody. This was primarily due to extensive evidence demonstrating the mother and stepfather's deliberate actions to impede the father's parental access and alienate the child from him, conduct deemed inconsistent with the child's best interests. In contrast, the father proved capable of fostering a meaningful relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent, offering a calmer and more stable environment for the child.

Child CustodyParental AlienationBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSole Legal and Physical CustodyAppellate DivisionParental AccessForensic EvaluationCustody DeterminationInterference with Parental Rights
References
14
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF THEROUX v. Reilly

The New York State Court of Appeals addressed whether eligibility for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c requires a 'heightened risk' standard for injuries sustained by municipal employees in law enforcement duties. The court concluded that section 207-c does not mandate such a standard, interpreting 'duties' to encompass the full range of a covered employee's job responsibilities. It clarified that eligibility only necessitates demonstrating a 'direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury.' Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division orders in three consolidated cases (Theroux v Reilly, Wagman v Kapica, and James v County of Yates Sheriff’s Dept.) that had erroneously applied the 'heightened risk' standard, reinstating Supreme Court orders in two and remitting one for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipJob DutiesPublic Safety Officers
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartoo v. Buell

This case addresses whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) applies to structures used for both residential and commercial purposes. The court applies a "site and purpose" test to determine applicability. In Bartoo v Buell, the repair of a barn roof, used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage, was deemed primarily residential, thus granting the owner exemption. In Anderson v Flanagan, the addition of a bedroom to a home also operating a daycare center was found to be directly related to residential use, exempting the owner from liability. The Court concluded that owners of one- or two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work are shielded by the homeowner exemption when the work directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawDual-Use PropertyResidential UseCommercial UseStrict LiabilitySite and Purpose TestScaffold CollapseRoof RepairBedroom Addition
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 24,569 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