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. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Detrick v. H & E MACHINERY, INC.

The plaintiff, Sherry Kellogg Detrick, sued her former employer, H & E Machinery, Inc., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII, Equal Pay Act violations, and state law claims including the New York Human Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Detrick contended she endured a hostile work environment and unequal pay compared to her male successor. H & E moved for summary judgment, arguing the Title VII and state law claims were time-barred, and the Equal Pay Act claim lacked a prima facie showing. The court granted H & E's motion, finding Detrick's harassment claims untimely and her Equal Pay Act claim unsupported by sufficient evidence of substantially equal jobs, and declined jurisdiction over the remaining state human rights claim.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineNew York Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentTimeliness of Claims
References
29
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05267 [220 AD3d 882]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2023

Omwathath v. Frank E. Basil, Inc.

Lakhram Omwathath filed an action seeking damages for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering after the death of the decedent, who was injured while working for Frank E. Basil, Inc. The decedent and subsequently the plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, which the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, concluding that the claims against Frank E. Basil, Inc. were barred and no allegations were made against Data Dimensions.

wrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingworkers' compensationmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a)documentary evidenceemployer immunityappellate affirmanceprocedural lawstatutory bar
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1995

Curran v. City of New York

The City of New York, as a defendant third-party plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated September 15, 1995. The original order had granted a motion by third-party defendant E.E. Cruz & Co., Inc. to dismiss the City's claim for common-law indemnification and contribution entirely. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that the dismissal should only apply to common-law indemnification up to the $1,000,000 limit of the Aetna insurance policy. This decision was based on the antisubrogation rule, as Aetna insured both the City and E.E. Cruz under the same policy. The modified order was subsequently affirmed.

Common-law indemnificationContributionAntisubrogation ruleInsurance policy limitsThird-party plaintiffThird-party defendantAppellate reviewPersonal injuries damagesInsurance lawMotion to dismiss
References
1
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06805
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

Bordonaro v. E.C. Provini Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Steven Bordonaro, a carpenter for CBI Drywall, was injured unloading a 1000-pound cabinet from a truck with a pallet jack, falling four feet from a liftgate. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's orders, dismissing Labor Law § 241(6) and common-law negligence claims against most defendants. However, triable issues remained for E.C. Provini Co. under Labor Law § 200 regarding its failure to provide a forklift. Conditional contractual indemnification was granted to non-owner defendants from CBI Drywall, and contractual indemnification claims against CBI were reinstated for certain other defendants. Common-law indemnification and contribution claims against CBI were dismissed due to workers' compensation and absence of grave injury.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkPallet JackFour-foot FallIndustrial Code ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGrave InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of E.E. Austin & Son, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated grain dust and a hose while working on a construction project at a grain silo owned by Nestle Purina Petcare Company. Plaintiff commenced an action against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. Nestle, in turn, filed a third-party action against Austin for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from both Nestle and Austin, leading to this appeal and cross-appeal. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and partially dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (except for the part based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2)). However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Labor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationGrain silo accidentConstruction project injuryTripping hazardPremises liabilitySupervisory controlIndemnity provision
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 1977

In re Jacqueline E.

This proceeding, initiated by the Commissioner of Social Services, sought a 12-month extension of placement for Jacqueline E., aimed at a trial discharge to her natural mother, Martha Q. The Law Guardian concurrently requested an extension and termination of parental rights for adoption by the foster parents, John and Hazel F. The court acknowledged Jacqueline's desire to remain with her foster parents, as expressed in a psychiatric evaluation and in camera. However, citing the natural mother's rehabilitation and statutory preference for reuniting families, the court extended Jacqueline's placement with the Department of Social Services through December 6, 1978. This extension includes a supervised trial discharge to the natural mother, while denying the Law Guardian's request to terminate parental rights.

Child PlacementFamily ReunificationParental RightsFoster CareTrial DischargeBest Interest of the ChildLaw GuardianSocial Services LawFamily Court ActParental Fitness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holtz v. E & E Drilling & Testing Co.

The Supreme Court erred in denying defendant E & E Drilling and Testing Company, Inc. (EEDT) permission to serve an amended answer. The proposed amendment sought to allege that workers' compensation benefits constitute the plaintiff's sole remedy. The appellate court ruled that leave to amend should be freely granted, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice. Furthermore, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the decedent's employment status at the time of the accident, which means the defendant's defense cannot be deemed meritless as a matter of law. Consequently, the original order was unanimously reversed, and the defendant's motion to serve an amended answer was granted.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAmended PleadingsAffirmative DefensesEmployment StatusSole Remedy DoctrineAppellate ReviewProcedural ErrorLeave to AmendMaterial Issue of FactDenial of Motion
References
8
Case No. CA 12-01554
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

SMITH, PAUL J. v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY

Paul J. Smith, a plaintiff, sued Nestle Purina Petcare Company (Nestle) for injuries sustained after slipping and falling in a grain silo during a construction project. Nestle then initiated a third-party action against E.E. Austin & Son, Inc. (Austin), Smith's employer. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from Nestle and Austin. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Nestle and Austin on Labor Law § 240 (1) and most of § 241 (6) claims, finding the injury unrelated to ladder use and certain regulations inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims, and the contractual indemnification claim between Nestle and Austin due to unresolved factual issues regarding Nestle's negligence.

Labor LawWorkplace InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityNegligenceSlip and FallGrain Silo
References
24
Case No. ADJ9671390; ADJ10457301
Regular
Dec 22, 2020

Santos Osorio vs. E.E. Hall, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to Citywide Scanning Service, Inc. concerning an order for defendant E.E. Hall, Inc. to pay medical-legal copy service fees. The WCAB found the record insufficient, lacking clarity on submitted evidence, party arguments, or stipulations. Consequently, the original order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to establish a proper evidentiary basis for any decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical-Legal DisputeCopy Service FeesPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of IntentionLabor Code § 4622Second Bill Reviewinsufficient recordadmitted evidencePetition for Reimbursement
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,023 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