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

Bugge v. Sweet

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court in Otsego County which set aside a jury verdict in his favor for $10,000 and directed a verdict for the defendant. The case stemmed from a 1975 motor vehicle accident, with the central legal question being whether the plaintiff sustained a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 671(4) at the time. The appellate court reviewed the medical evidence presented, specifically the testimony of the plaintiff's doctor. The court found the doctor's testimony regarding the permanency and causal link of the injury to the accident to be burdened with doubt, speculation, and inconsistency. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to establish the "serious injury" threshold required for recovery. Therefore, the order and judgment in favor of the defendant were affirmed.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjurySerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawSpinal FusionLumbo-sacral StrainCausationPermanencyMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 1988

Petterson v. Museum Tower Corp.

Mr. Martin Petterson, a machinist mover, was severely injured in a construction accident on August 24, 1981, at the Museum Tower construction site when he fell through an uncovered opening. He subsequently sued the owner, Museum Tower Corp., and the general contractor, Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The trial court initially granted Petterson a directed verdict on liability. However, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed this judgment, vacated the directed verdict, denied Petterson's motion, and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of liability. The reversal was based on the existence of a triable issue of fact concerning whether a protective barricade was in place at the time of the accident, despite a dissenting opinion advocating for the affirmation of the directed verdict.

Construction AccidentLabor LawDirected VerdictLiabilityWorkplace SafetyFall From HeightBuilding ErectionGeneral ContractorProperty OwnerSubcontractor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powell v. Sodus Cold Storage Co.

Plaintiff sustained injuries while installing insulation panels at defendant's facility when a co-worker dropped a rope used for hoisting a panel, causing it to strike the plaintiff. The defendant argued that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply due to a lack of height differential, but the Supreme Court denied their motion for a directed verdict, finding evidence of a height differential. The court concluded there was a triable issue of fact regarding the absence or inadequacy of a safety device under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court affirmed the judgment, upholding the denial of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and finding no error in the refusal to admit medical records or in the special verdict sheet.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Jury VerdictDirected VerdictHeight DifferentialSafety DeviceHoisting AccidentAppellate ReviewMedical Records AdmissibilitySpecial Verdict SheetPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03881
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2023

TJG Realty of Rockland, LLC v. Con Serv Constr., Inc.

This case involves two related actions for property damage after a fire at a commercial building. Plaintiffs TJG Realty of Rockland, LLC, Excelsior Estate Homes, LLC, Timothy Gulla, and E. Daskal Corp. sued Con Serv Construction, Inc., alleging negligence in installing a waste oil heater and storing flammable materials. A jury trial found in favor of Con Serv, determining the fire did not originate in the heater. The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict on one negligence theory but denied another. The Appellate Division affirmed the clerk's judgment, concluding the jury's verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence and any error in the directed verdict was harmless due to the jury's finding on the fire's origin.

Property DamageFireNegligenceJury VerdictExpert TestimonyCausationWaste Oil HeaterFlammable MaterialsAppellate ReviewWeight of Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2002

Finnigan v. Rochester Institute of Technology

The plaintiff, an employee of RADEC Corporation, was injured at a building owned by Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. Initially, a jury apportioned fault and awarded damages, but after reinstruction, RIT's fault was eliminated, leaving RADEC and the plaintiff responsible. Both parties moved for directed verdicts, with the court granting RIT's. On appeal, the higher court determined the lower court had erred in interpreting the jury's verdict concerning Labor Law § 241 (6) and Rule 23. Consequently, the appellate court denied RIT's motion for a directed verdict, granted RIT's alternative request for a new trial, and denied the plaintiff's motion, thereby granting a new trial on both liability and damages.

Labor LawNegligenceDirected VerdictNew TrialApportionment of FaultIndustrial CodeOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityJury Charge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCluskey v. West Bradford Corp.

Plaintiff Elizabeth McCluskey sustained an injury to her toe from a piece of metal embedded in a tile floor shortly after her employer moved into a new building. She initiated a negligence action against the landowner, building owner, general contractor, and the tile subcontractor, but a jury returned a verdict of no cause for action. On appeal, plaintiff asserted multiple errors, including the denial of requested jury charges on circumstantial evidence, adverse inference, constructive notice, res ipsa loquitur, and foreseeability, as well as a remark by opposing counsel and the court's refusal to grant a directed verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, finding no significant errors in the jury instructions, that the summation remark was harmless, and that the denial of a directed verdict was proper given the evidence. The court also noted that res ipsa loquitur was not applicable due to the lack of exclusive control by defendants over the area of injury.

NegligencePremises LiabilityTile Floor InjuryCircumstantial EvidenceRes Ipsa LoquiturJury InstructionsDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewConstructive NoticeSummation Error
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1993

Rodriguez v. Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Restor Technologies, Inc., was injured while dismantling a hoist on the roof of a building owned by Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc., when he was struck by a falling steel beam, resulting in a severe knee injury requiring multiple operations and causing permanent disability. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against Tietz Center, and Tietz Center was granted a directed verdict against Restor based on contractual and common-law indemnification, with a jury initially awarding $600,000 in damages. On appeal, the court rejected contentions that Labor Law § 240 was inapplicable and that the plaintiff's recovery was limited to Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the appellate court found the damages award excessive and conditionally modified the judgment. The judgment was affirmed only if the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict from $600,000 to $300,000, otherwise a new trial on damages only would be granted.

Personal InjuryFalling ObjectElevated WorksiteIndemnificationExcessive DamagesConditional AffirmationDamages ReductionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Albee

Plaintiff Gary D. Carpenter, a blacktop paver, sustained serious injuries when he was struck and dragged by a dump truck driven by defendant Bruce W. Albee while working on Interstate Route 88. Carpenter and his wife commenced a personal injury action against Albee and his employer. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding no negligence on the part of the defendants. Plaintiffs' motions to set aside the verdict and for a new trial were denied. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the jury's finding of no negligence was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court disagreed, finding that there was conflicting evidence that the jury could fairly interpret in the defendant's favor, and affirmed the lower court's judgment and order.

Personal InjuryNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceAutomobile AccidentWorkplace AccidentConflicting TestimonyCredibility IssuesAffirmed Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barnes

The appellate court reversed a murder conviction, finding the People failed to prove the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, charged with murder for shooting a co-worker, had raised an insanity defense. Two court-appointed psychiatrists testified that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and lacked the capacity to understand his actions. The court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict. Consequently, the case was remitted to the trial court with directions to enter a directed verdict of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect and to issue an examination order.

Insanity defenseMurderSchizophreniaParanoid typeCriminal procedureBurden of proofSanityAppellate reviewRemittalDirected verdict
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1996

Voiclis v. International Ass'n of Machinist & Aerospace Workers

The defendant, International Association of Machinist and Aerospace Workers, Suffolk Lodge No. 1470, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County. This order had granted the plaintiffs’ motion to set aside a jury verdict in the defendant's favor and directed a new trial. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the plaintiffs’ motion, and reinstated the original jury verdict. The decision emphasized that a jury verdict should not be set aside unless no fair interpretation of the evidence could support it, highlighting the deference accorded to the jury's fact-finding role and credibility determinations. The court concluded that a fair basis existed for the verdict in the appellant's favor, thus the verdict should not have been disturbed.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictAppealOrder ReversalAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCPLR 4404New Trial DenialDamages ClaimJudicial Discretion
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,502 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