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

Lewis v. Zon

Thomas Lewis, convicted of second-degree robbery, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the state trial court's ad hoc competency procedure. The trial court heavily relied on a social worker's report, commissioned after the competency hearing, without affording Lewis an opportunity to contest it or cross-examine the social worker. This District Court found that this procedure violated Lewis's Due Process rights, as it constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law requiring a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate incompetence. Given the impossibility of conducting a meaningful retrospective competency hearing due to the lapse of time and limitations of the original record, the court granted the habeas corpus petition. Lewis is to be discharged unless the State elects to retry him within 90 days.

habeas corpusdue processcompetency hearingpsychiatric examinationSixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausestate proceduresfederal lawcriminal prosecutionsecond-degree robbery
References
40
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02363
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2022

Lewis v. 96 Wythe Acquisition LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal in a personal injury case where plaintiff William Lewis was struck by an unsecured metal beam at a construction site. The lower court had granted Lewis summary judgment on his common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims. However, the appellate court modified this decision, denying Lewis's motion for summary judgment. This denial was based on inconsistent deposition testimonies from Lewis regarding how the accident occurred, creating a triable issue of fact. Additionally, the court conditionally granted defendants 96 Wythe Acquisition LLC and Dimyon Development Corp.'s motion for summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against All Island Masonry & Concrete, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentFactual DisputeWitness CredibilitySafety Device Failure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. North General Hospital

Darren Lewis, a pro se plaintiff, sued his former employer, North General Hospital, and his union, 1199SEIU United Health Care Workers East, alleging employment discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, and defamation. Lewis claimed discrimination based on perceived religion (Muslim) and sexual harassment by his supervisor, and that his union failed in its duty of fair representation. The hospital argued his termination was due to his failure to obtain a required social worker license. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants, ruling that the hospital had legitimate grounds for termination, Lewis's discrimination claims lacked legal basis under Title VII for "perceived religion" or sexual orientation, and the union adequately represented him.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationBreach of ContractDefamationHostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantSocial Worker Licensing
References
40
Case No. ADJ163759 (OAK 0311040) ADJ592970 (OAK 0311039)
Regular
Apr 02, 2016

EDWARD LEWIS vs. BRYCO CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Edward Lewis seeking workers' compensation for injuries from Bryco Construction. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lewis's petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy. Removal was denied because Lewis failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the judge's order continuing a settlement conference with discovery still open. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy should an adverse decision occur later.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryDahl DecisionVocational Expert
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1994

Chaitovitz v. Lewis

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing a personal injury complaint against defendant Paul S. Lewis after a jury found a Labor Law § 240 violation but no proximate cause. The appellate court found that once a ladder collapse and Labor Law § 240 (1) violation were established, proximate cause was legally proven. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment, granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability against Paul S. Lewis, and remitted the case for a trial on damages. Additionally, the plaintiff's purported appeal of a dismissed third-party complaint was rejected due to lack of standing as the plaintiff was not aggrieved by that dismissal.

personal injuryladder collapseLabor Law § 240proximate causejury verdictjudgment as a matter of lawappealdamages trialthird-party complaintstanding
References
8
Case No. 183 AD3d 738
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2020

Matter of Lewis v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The petitioner, Maurice G. Lewis, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied his petition to modify or vacate an arbitration award. The award had suspended Lewis, a bus driver for the New York City Transit Authority, for 15 days without pay due to an accident. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate grounds for vacatur, such as a violation of strong public policy, irrationality, or exceeding the arbitrator's power under CPLR article 75. The court also concluded that the temporary suspension penalty was not irrational and did not violate public policy or clearly exceed an enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacatur PetitionAppellate ReviewPublic Policy ViolationArbitrator's PowerEmployee SuspensionBus AccidentCollective Bargaining AgreementNew York Transit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1998

Hernandez v. Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman

Plaintiff Sumaira Hernandez filed an action against her employer, Defendant Jackson Lewis, alleging quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment, unlawful retaliation, and unlawful discrimination based on race and national origin, pursuant to Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Hernandez claimed that a billing coordinator, Mr. Mack, solicited sexual favors in exchange for overtime, and that the comptroller, Mr. Patterson, engaged in discriminatory practices regarding work assignments, bonuses, and promotions, and responded inappropriately to her complaints. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing prompt action and insufficient evidence for various claims. The Court denied the motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding employer liability, quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationDiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
16
Case No. CV-23-0279
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Monique Lewis

The case involves Monique Lewis, a social worker, who sustained a chest injury and alleged psychological injuries after being attacked by a dog during a home visit. The Workers' Compensation Board initially disallowed her claim for psychological injuries, applying a standard that required stress greater than that experienced by similarly situated workers. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, reversed this decision. It ruled that since a workplace accident with physical impact was established for the chest injury, the Board erred in applying the "greater stress" standard for direct psychological injuries resulting from the same incident. The matter was remitted to the Board to determine the causal connection between the accident and the claimed psychological conditions, including PTSD, anxiety, and acute stress disorder.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryPTSDAnxietyAcute Stress DisorderPhysical ImpactWorkplace AccidentCausationAppellate ReviewSocial Worker
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Mollette

Plaintiff Jermaine Lewis, a 15-year-old inmate at Highland OCFS, sued Eddie Mollette, Michael Gavin, John Bahret, and Nate Lassie under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of constitutional rights, excessive force, and failure to intervene. Lewis claims Mollette initiated a physical restraint technique (PRT) without provocation, and Gavin twisted his arm, causing a hairline fracture, while he was already restrained. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lewis failed to exhaust administrative remedies and their actions were justified. The court denied the summary judgment motion, finding Lewis made a reasonable attempt to exhaust remedies and that material facts regarding excessive force and failure to intervene are in dispute, requiring a trial. Claims against Bahret and Lassie, and certain constitutional and supervisory liability claims, were dismissed on consent.

Prisoner Litigation Reform ActPLRA ExhaustionExcessive ForceFailure to InterveneQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentYouth InmatePhysical Restraint Technique (PRT)Constitutional RightsEighth Amendment
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,431 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