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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08114
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2016

Matter of Kent D. (Rachel D.)

Petitioner Kent D. appealed an order from Family Court, New York County, which denied his motion for a forensic evaluation and granted the cross motion to dismiss his petition for visitation with his child. The background reveals that in February 2008, Kent D. stabbed Rachel D., the mother, seven times in front of their child, leading to his conviction for assault and child endangerment and an 11-year prison sentence. A 19-year order of protection was issued, prohibiting contact with the child. The Family Court had previously awarded custody to the mother, and a 2012 divorce judgment affirmed no visitation rights for Kent D. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that Kent D. failed to make an evidentiary showing of changed circumstances required for a visitation hearing, and his claims of completing an anger management program were unsubstantiated. The court also noted the child's continuing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and desire not to see him.

Visitation RightsChild CustodyOrder of ProtectionDomestic ViolenceAssault ConvictionChanged CircumstancesForensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewFamily LawPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angelora v. Kent Stores, Inc.

The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's amended complaint against Kent Stores, Inc. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the second cause of action in the plaintiff's amended complaint against Louis Marcus. The basis for these dismissals was the plaintiff's failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The decision included an award of ten dollars in costs and disbursements.

Amended ComplaintDismissalSufficiency of FactsCause of ActionAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsConcurring JusticesCivil Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pouso v. City of New York

Jose Pouso was injured while working on a City reconstruction project, falling into a vault beneath a sidewalk owned by Paul Kent and Thomas Weitzner d/b/a Kent Weitzner Associates. The owners had no contractual relationship with the City or Pouso's employer, Petracca & Sons, Inc. Justice Balletta, in a dissenting and concurring opinion, argues that property ownership alone should not establish liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) when there's no direct or indirect connection between the owner and the work. The opinion reviews precedents, highlighting that 'owners' liable under the Labor Law typically have a property interest and contract for the work or benefit directly from it. Since the owners neither contracted for the work nor controlled it, Justice Balletta concludes they should not be held liable, proposing summary judgment in their favor and dismissal of the complaint, also finding no basis for liability under Labor Law § 200.

LiabilityLabor LawOwner ResponsibilitySummary JudgmentConstruction ProjectPublic WorksContractual RelationshipPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationNondelegable Duty
References
18
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. 2025 NYSlipOp 01249 [236 AD3d 693]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2025

Ramos v. Kent & Wythe Owners, LLC

Plaintiff Vidal Ramos was injured while working as a laborer for R&M Repairs and Maintenance, Inc., a subcontractor at a construction site, when an A-frame cart carrying sheetrock overturned, trapping his legs and waist. He sued Kent & Wythe Owners, LLC, and related entities (L&M defendants) under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200. The Supreme Court denied Ramos's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), denied leave to amend his bill of particulars, and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions regarding Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims and the denial of leave to amend. However, it modified the order by denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 claim, finding that the defendants failed to establish prima facie that they were not liable.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyA-frame Cart AccidentSheetrock MovementSubcontractor Liability
References
30
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01751
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Crutch v. 421 Kent Dev., LLC

The case involves plaintiff Robert Crutch, an HVAC mechanic, who sustained personal injuries after falling from a loading dock due to a faulty railing at a construction site. Crutch commenced an action against 421 Kent Development, LLC and Wonder Works Construction Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Initially, the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Crutch's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Crutch's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of Everest Scaffolding, Inc.'s cross-motion concerning common-law and contractual indemnification claims, finding Everest failed to prove freedom from negligence.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site AccidentLoading Dock FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuriesWorker Safety
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2002

Kent v. Papert Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff Doris M. Kent, a former employee of The Papert Companies, Inc. (PCI), sued PCI, its officers, and Landon Media Group LLC, alleging sex and age discrimination. Kent claimed unequal pay based on sex and age, and discriminatory non-hiring by Landon after its acquisition of PCI's assets. The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment for defendants, dismissing some claims, but allowing wage discrimination claims against PCI and the Paperts to proceed. On appeal, the court found that Kent failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for unequal pay or non-hiring, concluding that wage disparities were justified by legitimate business considerations and that Landon had no openings for which Kent was qualified. Therefore, the appellate court modified the lower court's order by granting summary judgment to PCI and the Paperts, dismissing the entire complaint, and affirmed the dismissal against Landon.

Age DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEqual Pay Act ClaimSummary Judgment AppealEmployment DiscriminationWage DisparityStatute of LimitationsDiscriminatory HiringPrima Facie CaseAppellate Review
References
20
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,345 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