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

In re Eric CC.

The case involves an appeal by respondents Eric EE. and Elizabeth CC. from Family Court orders adjudicating their children, Eric CC. and Tiffany CC., as abused and/or neglected, and issuing orders of protection. The petitions alleged severe, life-threatening fractures in their six-week-old son, Eric. The Family Court determined the parents caused Eric's injuries, rejecting their "temporary brittle bone disease" defense, and found Tiffany also neglected due to the risk of harm. The appellate court affirmed, citing strong prima facie proof of child abuse and neglect through expert medical testimony, which respondents failed to sufficiently rebut. The court emphasized the credibility findings of the Family Court and the sufficiency of evidence to support the findings of abuse and neglect.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFracturesBlunt-Force TraumaTemporary Brittle Bone DiseaseAppellate ReviewFamily Court Act Article 10Medical Expert TestimonyWitness CredibilityOrders of Protection
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freedman v. Freedman

The Plaintiffs commenced an action against Estelle Freedman and Frederick Fagelson, as executor of Robert Freedman's estate, seeking to recover money under theories of equity. Robert Freedman, prior to his death, executed a new will eliminating bequests to Estelle, but did not change the beneficiary designation of his Schwab IRA account, which named Estelle. The Plaintiffs argued unjust enrichment and monies had and received, contending Robert intended to exclude Estelle from the IRA. The Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court, applying New York's EPTL § 13-3.2, found that a beneficiary designation must be changed in writing and that general testamentary statements in a will are insufficient, especially since Robert's 1997 will did not specifically reference the Schwab account. The court also held that quasi-contractual claims are not permitted when a valid and legally enforceable instrument (the beneficiary designation) exists. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Estate LawIRA BeneficiaryUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissNew York EPTL 13-3.2Testamentary IntentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Quasi-Contract
References
17
Case No. CA 14-02232
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2015

SVENSON, ERIC, MTR. OF

This case concerns an appeal from an order and judgment that partially vacated an arbitration award. Petitioners, Eric and Marcelle L. Svenson, and respondents, Richard B. Swegan and Debra A. Dinnocenzo, were involved in a property dispute over the removal of maple trees. An arbitrator awarded respondents treble and punitive damages for trespass. The Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, vacated the punitive damages but confirmed the rest of the award. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting petitioners' arguments that they were estopped from appealing, that the arbitrator misapplied RPAPL 861, and that treble damages were punitive. The court held that an arbitrator's factual and substantive law resolutions are generally not reviewable and that RPAPL 861 treble damages are not inherently punitive.

Arbitration AwardVacating ArbitrationPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesTrespass LawProperty Boundary DisputeAppellate Court DecisionCivil ProcedureReal Property LawJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eric Lutz Construction, Inc. v. McGowan

Eric Lutz Construction, Inc. filed a CPLR article 78 petition seeking review of a New York State Department of Labor determination. The Department of Labor found the petitioner willfully violated Labor Law § 220 by underpaying 43 workers on public works contracts, ordering $141,787.28 in back wages, a 16% interest rate, a 25% civil penalty, and a five-year debarment. The court found substantial evidence supported the finding of willful violation and the order for back wages. However, pursuant to a stipulation, the court annulled the 16% interest rate and the civil penalty, remitting the matter for a new interest rate not exceeding 6%. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the proceeding was largely dismissed on the merits.

Prevailing WagePublic Works ContractLabor LawCPLR Article 78Wage UnderpaymentCivil PenaltyInterest RateDebarmentWillful ViolationStipulation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. 2018-07877 (Index No. 702379/15)
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2021

Zhi Eric Zhang v. ABC Corp.

The plaintiff, Zhi Eric Zhang, was injured in a mall restaurant after being attacked by a group of customers from an adjacent karaoke establishment. He initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries against New World Mall, LLC (the mall's lessee) and Grand Restaurant Group, Inc. (GRGI, the sublessee operating the restaurant and karaoke). The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to protect against unforeseen assaults, and GRGI additionally claimed immunity under the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions as the alter ego of the plaintiff's employer. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants failed to demonstrate prima facie that the assault was unforeseeable and unexpected, and GRGI failed to establish its alter ego status.

Personal InjuryAssaultPremises LiabilityForeseeability of HarmSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ImmunityAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ReviewRestaurant LiabilityMall Liability
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center

Dr. M. Pierre Rafiy and Dr. Philip Rafiy (the Rafiys) initiated a civil action against Nassau County Medical Center, Nassau County, Dr. Bruce Meinhard, and Dr. Anthony Angelo. Their claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Sherman Act, included deprivation of hospital privileges without due process, racial discrimination, and retaliation for exercising free speech rights. The Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the revoked assignments were not protected property interests and the Rafiys failed to exhaust state remedies. They also contended that the Rafiys' speech was not protected under the First Amendment and that evidence for discrimination was lacking. The court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts, concluding that no constitutional violations occurred and that the Rafiys' antitrust claim had been withdrawn.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionRacial DiscriminationRetaliationHospital PrivilegesSummary JudgmentSherman ActAntitrust
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1989

Murphy v. Blum

Donald Murphy, an NBA referee, underwent a physical examination by defendant Dr. Richard Blum and a stress test analyzed by Blum, which was found "abnormal." The results were communicated to the NBA and Murphy's personal physician. Following a a cardiac arrest that ended his career, Murphy sued Dr. Blum for medical malpractice. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling that no physician-patient relationship existed between Murphy and Dr. Blum because Blum was retained solely by the NBA for an examination, not for treatment. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, upholding that a doctor engaged for examination purposes only assumes duties associated with those functions, not duties concerning treatment or expert opinions.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipDuty of CareComplaint DismissalCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewProfessional Sports InjuryPre-employment ExaminationNo Physician-Patient RelationshipAffirmation of Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travis v. Freedman

This personal injury lawsuit was filed under New York Labor Law 240 and 241 after a plaintiff fell from a spackle bucket during construction at a one-family home owned by Judith Freedman. The defendants, Herbert and Judith Freedman, moved for summary judgment, asserting the single-family dwelling exception to strict liability under the Labor Law, as they did not direct or control the work. The court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing all claims against them. Upon reconsideration, while acknowledging factual disputes, the court reaffirmed its previous decision, finding no adequate factual basis for the plaintiff's claims of ordinary negligence or malicious conduct to overcome the summary judgment and strict liability exemption for homeowners.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawHomeowner LiabilityStrict LiabilityConstruction AccidentDiversity JurisdictionReconsiderationOne-Family Dwelling ExceptionFall from Height
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,419 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