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
Jul 14, 2005

Smith v. 21 West LLC Limited Liability Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09604
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Maggio v. 24 West 57 PFF, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Maggio, a drywall installer, was injured after falling from a scaffold staircase at a premises owned by 24 West 57 APF, LLC and leased by Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY). The scaffold, constructed by Atlantic Hoist & Scaffolding, LLC, had a modified staircase with plywood covering some steps, lacking anti-slip protection and having an irregular rise. Plaintiff attributed his fall to these conditions and the presence of construction debris. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from defendants 24 West and ATNY, citing outstanding discovery, and later denied renewed motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division found 24 West and ATNY justified in bringing the second motion but denied their request for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual questions regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The court also denied plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting ATNY conditional contractual indemnification against R&R, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santos v. 304 West 56th Street Realty LLC

An HVAC mechanic, referred to as the plaintiff, sustained injuries after falling through a collapsed concrete platform in an alleyway while retrieving a tool post-work. He was performing work for Bricco Restaurant Corp. located at 304 West 56th Street, while the platform was connected to buildings owned by Eighth & 56th Street Associates, LLP. The plaintiff filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Bricco Restaurant Corp., 304 West 56th Street Realty LLC, and Eighth & 56th Street Associates, LLP. The court dismissed all Labor Law claims against all defendants, reasoning the platform was a permanent installation and the plaintiff was not engaged in covered activities at the work site. Negligence claims were also dismissed against Bricco Restaurant Corp. and 304 West 56th Street Realty LLC. However, the negligence claim based on res ipsa loquitur against Eighth & 56th Street Associates, LLP survived the summary judgment motion.

Labor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentRes Ipsa LoquiturWorkplace AccidentBuilding CollapseHVAC MechanicOwner LiabilityStatutory InterpretationCommon-Law Negligence
References
17
Case No. ADJ9042929
Regular
Jun 11, 2018

Hayat Zarifi vs. Group 1 Automotive, National Union Fire Insurance Company, ESIS WEST WC CLAIMS

Applicant Hayat Zarifi sought increased permanent disability for a psyche injury, claiming his head striking a glass wall constituted a "violent act" or "severe head injury" under Labor Code section 4660.1. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the incident did not meet the statutory exceptions for psychiatric injuries stemming from physical harm. Unlike cited cases involving severe trauma, applicant here did not lose consciousness, require immediate medical care, or experience extreme force. Therefore, his psychiatric claim arising from the physical injury was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4660.1Compensable Consequence InjuryViolent ActSevere Head InjuryConsciousness DisorderCognitive ImpairmentCatastrophic Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamberson v. Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Lamberson, a Caucasian male, sued his employer, Six West Retail Acquisition Inc., and individuals Sheldon Solow and Jeffery Jacobs, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law. Lamberson claimed he was unlawfully discharged after complaining about the reassignment of an African-American employee, Derrick Caver, from a public-facing role due to his appearance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamberson was fired for poor managerial judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding Lamberson, as a Caucasian, was not a member of a protected class and failed to show a hostile work environment or infringement on his right to interracial association. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, ruling that Lamberson raised a triable issue as to whether his complaints about Caver's reassignment were protected activity and if there was a causal connection to his discharge. Consequently, retaliation claims against Six West, Solow, and Jacobs survive.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawUnlawful DischargeSummary JudgmentManagerial DutiesEmployee ReassignmentHostile Work Environment
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mizugami v. Sharin West Overseas, Inc.

Keitato Mizugami, an employee of Sharin West Overseas, Inc., was fatally stabbed in New York City. His mother, a Japanese citizen and resident, filed a claim for death benefits, asserting dependency. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed an award of death benefits to the claimant, finding a causally related death and dependency. The employer appealed, arguing that there was no proof of one-year support as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 17 for nonresident aliens. The court held that the 1953 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the US and Japan supersedes § 17’s one-year support requirement, mandating national treatment for Japanese nationals, meaning dependency only at the date of death (Workers’ Compensation Law § 16). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s finding of dependency and affirmed the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationDependency BenefitsNonresident AlienTreaty LawStatutory ConflictInternational LawDeath BenefitsAppellate DivisionNew YorkEmployer Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 1989

Claim of Rosenbaum v. Lichtenstein

Claimant, a carpenter's assistant, sustained an injury to his left hand while performing renovation work for Lichtenstein and Schindel, a law firm, at a property owned by Flair West Realty Company. The law firm's partners were also partners in Flair West, which was described as "part of the law firm." State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, the workers' compensation carrier, controverted the claim, arguing claimant was employed by Flair West, a separate entity. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed that the claimant was an employee of Lichtenstein and Schindel, doing business as Flair West, and covered by the firm's policy. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of employment by the firm and coverage under its workers' compensation policy.

Workers' CompensationEmployment relationshipPartnership LiabilityInsurance CoverageRenovation InjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionDual EmployerCarpenter's Assistant
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Olga Coal Co.

The Chapter 11 Successor Trustee of Olga Coal Company objected to the priority status of claims filed by the State of West Virginia Workers’ Compensation Division, which sought administrative or tax priority for post-petition payments related to pre-petition workers' compensation injuries. The court denied administrative priority, ruling that the claims arose pre-petition from the date of injury. However, the court found the State’s reimbursement obligation met the criteria for an excise tax under federal and state law, distinguishing it from private surety claims. Consequently, tax priority was granted, but only for claims related to injuries that occurred within the three years immediately preceding the bankruptcy petition date, with the remainder treated as general, non-priority unsecured claims.

BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationClaim PriorityAdministrative PriorityExcise TaxPre-petition ClaimsGovernmental ClaimsSurety BondsWest Virginia LawChapter 11
References
30
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 18,097 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