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. 2023 NY Slip Op 04702 [219 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

47 E. 34th St. (NY) L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.

In 47 E. 34th St. (NY) L.P. v BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc., the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, 47 East 34th Street (NY) L.P. The plaintiff had sought to hold Versa Capital Management, LLC, and Domus BWW Funding, LLC liable as successors or alter egos of BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc. (BWW) on a lease guaranty. The Appellate Division found that the lower court erred by relying on a mistaken belief of a 'limited factual issue' and misinterpreting previous admissions. It concluded that documentary evidence disproved successor and alter ego liability, as BWW's assets were transferred to nonparties, not to Versa or Domus Funding. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to Versa Capital Management, LLC, and Domus BWW Funding, LLC, dismissing all claims against them.

Successor LiabilityAlter EgoFraudulent ConveyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCorporate DominationLoan ForeclosureForbearance AgreementVeil PiercingPersonal Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2024

People v. A.L.

This case involves the defendant, A.L., seeking to terminate her lifetime parole under New York's Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) for the 1995 murder of her six-year-old daughter, E. A.L. was convicted of murder in the second degree after E. died from head injuries inflicted by A.L. The court acknowledges A.L. was a victim of substantial domestic violence by her partner, Carlos. However, the court ruled that this abuse was not a significant contributing factor to E.'s murder and that A.L.'s current sentence of lifetime parole was not unduly harsh. The decision highlights other contributing factors to A.L.'s criminal behavior, including severe substance abuse, childhood trauma, and a difficult personal relationship with the victim.

Domestic Violence Survivors Justice ActParole TerminationResentencing MotionChild HomicideDomestic Violence VictimSubstance Abuse DisorderTraumatic Brain InjuryCoercive ControlExpert Witness TestimonyJudicial Discretion
References
17
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01728
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2019

O'Dwyer v. Law Offs. of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC

This case involves a fee-sharing dispute between Ginarte, O'Dwyer, Gonzalez, Gallardo & Winograd, L.L.P. (plaintiff) and The Law Offices of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC (defendant) concerning Workers' Compensation cases. The plaintiff moved to compel discovery, and the defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court initially denied both motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order by granting the plaintiff's discovery motion, allowing access to the Workers' Compensation Board's eCase system for referred cases. The court affirmed the denial of partial summary judgment for the defendants, noting that the breach of contract claim could not be resolved as a matter of law due to evidence of the plaintiff's firm's participation. An appeal and cross-appeal from a subsequent order denying reargument were dismissed as nonappealable.

Fee-sharing agreementBreach of contractRules of Professional ConductDiscovery disputeWorkers' Compensation casesAppellate reviewSummary judgmentAttorney responsibilityE-discoveryLegal ethics
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paykina ex rel. E.L. v. Lewin

Plaintiff Natalya Paykina initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of her son, E.L., a minor with severe mental illness in the custody of the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). The complaint alleged that E.L.'s prolonged confinement in the Adolescent Offender Separation Unit (AOSU) at Hudson Correctional Facility constituted cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment. E.L. exhibited mental health deterioration and self-harming behaviors during his segregation. The Court found that Plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm and a clear likelihood of success on the merits. Expert testimony highlighted the severe psychological damage solitary confinement inflicts on mentally ill juveniles. Consequently, the Court granted a preliminary injunction, ordering Defendants to immediately remove E.L. from the AOSU.

Eighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentSolitary ConfinementJuvenile OffendersMental HealthPreliminary InjunctionDOCCSHudson Correctional FacilityAdolescent Offender Separation UnitDeliberate Indifference
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2016

United States v. E.L.

Defendant E.L. pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. Despite United States Sentencing Guidelines recommending 51 to 63 months imprisonment, Judge Jack B. Weinstein imposed a non-incarceratory sentence of five years of probation with strict conditions. This decision was largely based on extensive medical and expert testimony, which indicated that E.L. poses an almost zero risk of re-offending, especially with his ongoing participation in psychological and sex offender treatment. The court highlighted the significant negative impact incarceration would have on E.L.'s family and his progress in treatment, while emphasizing the importance of individualized sentencing assessments. This ruling also aligned with broader concerns from the Sentencing Commission and various courts regarding the severity and applicability of child pornography guidelines for non-production offenses.

Child pornographySentencingProbation18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)United States Sentencing GuidelinesSex offender treatmentRecidivism riskForensic psychiatryObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)Depression
References
43
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06892
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2021

Matter of Chloe L. (Samantha L.)

The Schoharie County Department of Social Services appealed a Family Court order dismissing its petition to adjudicate Chloe L. as an abused and/or neglected child by her mother, Samantha L. Family Court dismissed the abuse claim, finding no sexual gratification purpose in shaving the child, and also dismissed neglect allegations despite crediting the child's testimony. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal of the neglect allegations, finding that the Family Court erred in its assessment of evidence regarding respondent showing the child a sexual device, inviting the child to remain during intercourse, and showing her pornography. The Appellate Court concluded that neglect was proven by a preponderance of the evidence and remitted the matter to Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

Child NeglectChild AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate DivisionReversalRemittalSexual MisconductPornographyCredibility DeterminationsPreponderance of Evidence
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06966
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

Matter of Lacee L. (Dekodia L.)

Stephanie L., a mother with an intellectual disability, appealed a Family Court decision, affirmed by the Appellate Division, concerning the Administration for Children's Services' (ACS) efforts towards family reunification with her infant daughter, Lacee L. Stephanie L. argued that ACS failed to provide

Disability RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActFamily Court ActChild WelfareFamily ReunificationReasonable EffortsReasonable AccommodationParental RightsNeglect ProceedingsAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01533 [192 AD3d 1344]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2021

Matter of Micah L. (Rachel L.)

This case concerns the appeal of Rachel L. and Robert L. from an order of the Family Court of Broome County, which granted the Broome County Department of Social Services' application to adjudicate their child, Micah L., as abandoned and terminated their parental rights. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the Family Court's findings, which established by clear and convincing evidence that both the mother and father failed to maintain contact with the child or the agency during the statutory six-month period. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, concluding that the parents did not prove inability to maintain contact or that they were prevented from doing so, and that termination was in the child's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentSocial Services Law § 384-bAppellate ReviewFamily CourtBest Interests of ChildDrug RehabilitationIncarcerationSupervised VisitationClear and Convincing Evidence
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03321
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Jackson v. Hunter Roberts Constr., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Robert Jackson sustained personal injuries after tripping and falling on a plywood ramp at a construction site while working as a plumber. He brought claims against the owner, Hunter Roberts Construction, L.L.C., and the general contractor, Bronx Parking Development Company, L.L.C., under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying the defendants' motion and reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved triable issues of fact concerning constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactPlywood Ramp
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,846 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