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. CA 11-02000
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2012

OLSEN, MICHAEL JAMES v. KOZLOWSKI, SHIRLEY F.

Plaintiff Michael James Olsen commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from falling during residence construction. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants Louis F. Kozlowski and Shirley F. Kozlowski (property owners) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted dismissal against Louis F. Kozlowski and denied dismissal against Shirley F. Kozlowski, also granting plaintiff's motion against Shirley F. Kozlowski. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying plaintiff's motion in its entirety, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the employer, which could bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOfficer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityConstruction AccidentFall from Height
References
20
Case No. CA 15-00709
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2015

ANDERSON, ROBERT JAMES v. KERNAN, JAMES M.

Plaintiff Robert James Anderson initiated an action against James M. Kernan and Marlene Kernan, seeking damages for an alleged breach of a joint venture agreement. The purpose of this alleged venture was to develop a market for workers' compensation insurance coverage through professional employer organizations (PEO). The Supreme Court, Oneida County, granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that both Marlene Kernan and James M. Kernan made prima facie showings that they did not agree to enter into a joint venture with the plaintiff. The court further found that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, noting that an 'agreement to agree' on a general principle is unenforceable due to indefiniteness in contract law.

Joint Venture AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract LawIndefinitenessAgreement to AgreeWorkers' Compensation InsuranceProfessional Employer OrganizationsCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rennoldson v. James J. Volpe Realty Corp.

Gerald Rennoldson, a maintenance worker, was injured after falling from a ladder while performing routine maintenance at Delta Sonic Car Wash. He filed a claim against James F. Volpe, Sr., the property owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss this claim. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable because the plaintiff's task was routine maintenance in a non-construction context, and replacing a leaking tube does not constitute a repair or alteration under the statute.

Ladder FallRoutine MaintenanceProperty Owner LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryLabor Law InterpretationNon-Construction Context
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2016

Leo v. Lomma

This case addresses consolidated wrongful death actions resulting from a catastrophic crane collapse in Manhattan in 2008, which led to the deaths of Donald Leo and Kurtaj. The plaintiffs successfully sued New York Crane & Equipment Corp., J.F. Lomma, Inc., and James F. Lomma, with the jury finding negligence and piercing the corporate veil to hold Lomma personally liable for prioritizing profit over safety in procuring a defective crane bearing. On appeal, the court affirmed the liability findings and the corporate veil piercing, while also upholding the preclusion of a defense expert's testimony. However, the appellate court deemed the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, pain and suffering, and punitive damages to be excessive. Consequently, it directed a new trial on these damages unless the plaintiffs agreed to stipulated reductions, otherwise affirming the judgments with modifications.

Wrongful DeathCrane CollapseCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExcessive DamagesExpert Witness PreclusionNegligenceReckless ConductConstruction AccidentPreimpact Terror
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01310 [169 AD3d 549]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Matter of Samantha F. (Edwin F.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Family Court, Bronx County, which found that respondent Edwin F. sexually abused the eldest child and derivatively neglected his other children. The appeal was found to be properly taken from an appealable order. The court determined that the finding of sexual abuse was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the child's detailed out-of-court statements corroborated by the mother's testimony, a sibling's statements, and expert testimony. The sexual abuse also supported the finding of derivative neglect, as it demonstrated the respondent's defective understanding of parental obligations, placing other children at substantial risk.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectAppellate ReviewFamily Court ProceedingsCorroborated TestimonyExpert Witness TestimonyParental ObligationsRisk AssessmentChild Protection Services
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re James R.

This case addresses a neglect petition filed against a respondent father and mother concerning their child, James R. The respondent mother was found to have neglected James by refusing him shelter, food, clothing, and necessary counseling. A central issue was whether the noncustodial respondent father had an obligation to provide for his child when the custodial mother failed to act in the child's best interest, especially given his knowledge of the child's extreme vulnerability and distress, including suicidal ideation. The court unequivocally affirmed this obligation, ruling that the father's reliance on a prior custody agreement was insufficient. Consequently, the court also found the respondent father neglected James for failing to provide adequate shelter, food, and clothing, though able to do so.

Child NeglectParental ObligationNoncustodial Parent ResponsibilityFamily Court ActBest Interests of the ChildParental Rights and ResponsibilitiesAbandonmentChild WelfareDue ProcessState Intervention
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1984

In re Kim F.

The Family Court, New York County, issued a final order of disposition adjudicating 15-year-old Kim F. a juvenile delinquent for acts constituting arson in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree. This adjudication followed a guilty plea entered in Rockland County Family Court concerning an incident where Kim F. intentionally started a fire at a mental health center. The appellate court reversed this order, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded the case to the Rockland County Family Court for further proceedings. The reversal was based on several procedural errors, including the failure to notify Kim F.'s parents, inadequate advisement of her rights to remain silent and counsel, and the lack of an admission of intentional damage, which is a required element of the crimes charged. The court emphasized the necessity for both the minor and a parent to understand and waive such fundamental rights before a guilty plea can be accepted.

Juvenile DelinquencyArson Second DegreeCriminal Mischief Fourth DegreeGuilty PleaParental NotificationRight to CounselRight to Remain SilentDue ProcessVacated PleaRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance

St. James Mechanical, Inc., an insured party, initiated an action against its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, and an affiliated carrier, seeking a judgment declaring their obligation to defend and indemnify St. James in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. This underlying action stemmed from an accident involving a worker hired by St. James for renovations at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Royal disclaimed coverage, citing St. James's two-year delay in providing notice of the accident, contending it failed to meet the 'as soon as practicable' clause in the commercial general liability policy. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the insurance carriers' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing St. James's complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that St. James successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether its delay in notice was reasonably based on a good faith belief in nonliability, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentPersonal injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyGood faith belief in nonliabilityCondition precedentAppellate review
References
15
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05756 [164 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2018

James v. Crystal Springs Water

The plaintiff, Robert James, an employee of Manpower Group US, Inc., was injured while working at Crystal Springs Water premises and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. James then initiated a personal injury action against Crystal Springs Water. Crystal Springs moved for summary judgment, asserting it was James's special employer under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29, which would legally bar a negligence suit. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted this motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that Crystal Springs had established a prima facie case of special employment based on James's receipt of workers' compensation and Crystal Springs' control over his work details. The plaintiff's contradictory affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityGeneral EmployerControl TestConflicting TestimonyNew York Labor Law
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03952
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2022

Kelly v. State of New York

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Court of Claims' dismissal of claimant James F. Kelly's action against the State of New York. Kelly, a part-time police officer, challenged his ineligibility to take a full-time officer exam due to exceeding an age limit imposed by Civil Service Law § 58. The court held that federal constitutional claims under 42 USC § 1983 cannot be asserted against the State in the Court of Claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, Kelly's Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim was dismissed as Civil Service Law § 58 falls within the ADEA's law enforcement exception, allowing age-based hiring for police officers. Finally, the claim based on Civil Service Law § 54 was also dismissed, as that statute permits reasonable age requirements for civil service positions.

Age DiscriminationCivil Service LawPolice OfficerCourt of ClaimsAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Constitutional ClaimsADEA ExceptionLaw Enforcement ExemptionFailure to State a Cause of Action
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,430 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