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
Apr 05, 1996

Dominguez v. Lafayette-Boynton Housing Corp.

Plaintiff Jose Dominguez was injured while working on a scaffold at a building in Bronx County, employed by Sun Construction, a subcontractor for general contractor Proto Construction, which was hired by building owner Lafayette-Boynton Housing Corporation. The accident occurred when Dominguez and a co-worker were maneuvering the scaffold, weighted with bricks and cement, around an air conditioning unit, causing it to swing back and smash into the unit, injuring Dominguez's wrist. Plaintiffs initiated a personal injury action, alleging Labor Law violations against Lafayette-Boynton and Proto. The IAS Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting the accident was not a 'special hazard' contemplated by the law. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the accident was indeed gravity-related and fell under the statute's protection, thus denying the defendants' dismissal motions and granting plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action.

Scaffolding accidentElevation-related hazardGravitySummary judgmentAppellate reversalWorker injuryConstruction siteBuilding refacingAir conditioner obstructionStatutory interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2014

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C. v. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. CASSAR

This appeal arises from a dispute between two law firms concerning attorney's fees. The plaintiff law firm initially represented a client in a personal injury action. The client subsequently discharged the plaintiff and retained the defendant law firms. The plaintiff then commenced an action against the defendants in Erie County, seeking attorney's fees on a quantum meruit basis and alleging frivolous and fraudulent conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer venue. The court granted the dismissal of the second and third causes of action related to frivolous and fraudulent conduct but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the first cause of action and the denial of the motion to transfer venue.

Attorney's FeesCharging LienQuantum MeruitLegal MalpracticeFrivolous ConductFraudMotion to DismissVenue TransferCPLR 3211CPLR 510
References
13
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01728
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2019

O'Dwyer v. Law Offs. of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC

This case involves a fee-sharing dispute between Ginarte, O'Dwyer, Gonzalez, Gallardo & Winograd, L.L.P. (plaintiff) and The Law Offices of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC (defendant) concerning Workers' Compensation cases. The plaintiff moved to compel discovery, and the defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court initially denied both motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order by granting the plaintiff's discovery motion, allowing access to the Workers' Compensation Board's eCase system for referred cases. The court affirmed the denial of partial summary judgment for the defendants, noting that the breach of contract claim could not be resolved as a matter of law due to evidence of the plaintiff's firm's participation. An appeal and cross-appeal from a subsequent order denying reargument were dismissed as nonappealable.

Fee-sharing agreementBreach of contractRules of Professional ConductDiscovery disputeWorkers' Compensation casesAppellate reviewSummary judgmentAttorney responsibilityE-discoveryLegal ethics
References
3
Case No. ADJ7836773
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

Francisco Flores vs. Superior Carpet Works, Inc., Preferred Employers

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a sanctions order against the Law Offices of John A. Mendoza. The Appeals Board is also notifying the law firm of its intention to impose additional sanctions. This is due to alleged misrepresentations of fact in the petition for reconsideration and violations of Appeals Board rules regarding attaching previously filed documents. The law firm is granted twenty days to show cause why these additional sanctions should not be imposed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANCTIONSRECONSIDERATIONDEPOSITION ATTORNEY FEESLABOR CODE SECTION 5710LABOR CODE SECTION 5813APPEALS BOARD RULESDUE PROCESSMISREPRESENTATIONSFAILURE TO RESPOND
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2008

Barnett v. Schwartz

The plaintiffs sued their attorneys for legal malpractice concerning a lease and purchase option agreement for commercial property. The property was classified as an inactive hazardous waste disposal site, a fact the attorneys, Jeffrey Schwartz and his law firm, knew but allegedly failed to disclose to the plaintiffs, advising them to enter an "as is" agreement. Two years later, the plaintiffs discovered the environmental contamination. The attorneys then reportedly advised them to continue paying rent and exercise the purchase option, assuring a quick cleanup, which ultimately took three years. A jury found the defendants liable for malpractice for failing to inform the plaintiffs about the environmental issues and the implications of the "as is" clause. The appellate court upheld the jury's findings on liability and damages but modified the judgment to include an award of prejudgment interest to the plaintiffs.

Legal MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceEnvironmental ContaminationAs Is ClauseProperty LeasePurchase OptionProximate CauseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. CV 85-1664 (LDW)
Regular Panel Decision

Benvenuto v. Schneider

The case concerns the Allied Security Health & Welfare Fund and its former trustees, Daniel Cunningham and Nunzio Nicolosi, who breached their ERISA fiduciary duties. They imprudently contracted with the law firm Schneider & Taubman for a prepaid legal plan, leading to excessive payments for inadequate services. The law firm and its partner, Irwin Schneider, were found to have knowingly participated in these breaches and benefited from the overpayments. The court held all defendants jointly and severally liable to the Fund for an overpayment of $292,800. Additionally, pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees were awarded to the plaintiffs.

ERISAFiduciary DutyBreach of Fiduciary DutyEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanPrepaid Legal ServicesExcessive FeesJoint and Several LiabilityTrustee MisconductLabor LawCivil Action
References
3
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of City of New York v. Bloomberg

The New York City Council initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel the Mayor and the City of New York to enforce the Equal Benefits Law. This local law mandated that city agencies could only contract with firms providing equal employment benefits to domestic partners and spouses. The Mayor refused enforcement, arguing the law was preempted by state and federal statutes. The Appellate Division dismissed the proceeding, a decision upheld by this court. The Court concluded that the Equal Benefits Law was preempted by General Municipal Law § 103 due to competitive bidding requirements and by ERISA for its regulation of employee benefit plans, rejecting the Council's market participant argument.

Equal Benefits LawPreemptionCompetitive BiddingGeneral Municipal LawERISAEmployee BenefitsDomestic PartnersSpousal BenefitsMarket Participant ExceptionArticle 78 Proceeding
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 14,474 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