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. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc.

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03584
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Smith v. Park

Alex K. Smith, a 14-year-old, died in a skid steer accident at Park Family Farm. His mother, Vicky S.T. Smith, as administrator, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, finding the decedent an illegally employed minor. The claimant challenged this, arguing the employer was uninsured. The Workers' Compensation Board confirmed coverage by the State Insurance Fund and increased the death benefit award to $100,000 under double indemnity provisions, with Park Family Farm solely responsible for the increased amount due to illegal employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that a change in partnership composition did not invalidate the insurance policy.

Illegal EmploymentMinor Employee DeathWorkers' Compensation Death BenefitsInsurance Policy ValidityPartnership ChangeEmployer LiabilityDouble IndemnityAppellate ReviewFarm AccidentSkid Steer Accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Husted v. Seneca Steel Service, Inc.

The claimant, an inside worker at Seneca Steel Service Inc., was involved in an automobile accident while turning into his employer's parking lot. The initial impact occurred on a public highway, but a subsequent collision causing serious arm injuries happened within the employer's parking lot. The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded benefits, determining the claimant was entitled to safe ingress and egress. The court considered whether injuries sustained on premises, causally connected to off-premises events, preclude compensation. Citing prior cases, the court noted that hazards on public highways are generally outside the scope of employment. However, it found that the employer's parking lot is considered part of the premises for compensation purposes. The court affirmed the board's decision, concluding that the question of whether the accident occurred in the course of employment was a factual matter supported by substantial evidence.

Automobile AccidentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPremises LiabilityIngress-Egress RulePublic Road IncidentCausation of InjurySubstantial EvidenceWorkmen's Compensation BoardEmployer's Parking LotAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25151
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Friends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by Friends of Fort Greene Park against the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the environmental review process for a renovation project in Fort Greene Park. Petitioner alleged that the Parks Department failed to take a "hard look" at adverse environmental impacts, improperly segmented environmental review, issued a conditional negative declaration, and used an arbitrary tree valuation tool. The court denied the petition, finding that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and rationally applied its protocols. The court also addressed a novel claim under New York's Green Amendment, concluding it creates a self-executing substantive right but found no violation in this context, as the project was justified by important government interests and aimed for long-term environmental improvement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRGreen AmendmentConstitutional LawPublic Park RenovationTree RemovalHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1994

In re Quinones

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable back injury after slipping on ice in a parking lot across from her workplace. Despite the employer having sold the parking lot and allegedly notifying employees not to park there, the Board found the injury arose from employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision. It was determined that the employer failed to prove the claimant received prior notification regarding the parking restrictions, thus supporting the finding of a compensable injury.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace InjuryParking Lot AccidentCompensable InjuryEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier AppealBoard Decision AffirmationNotice RequirementCourse of EmploymentBack Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lawton v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed April 13, 1993, which found that the claimant sustained an accidental injury during employment. The claimant was injured in the employer’s parking lot by a fellow employee while heading to a restaurant before his shift. The Board concluded that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment because it occurred on the employer’s premises, an area exclusive to employees, thus exposing the claimant to employment-specific risks. The court upheld the Board's decision, noting that an employer-maintained parking lot is part of the employment precincts and a reasonable amount of time before a shift is covered. It ruled that the claimant’s dual use of the lot (personal and employment-related) made the Board’s conclusion rational, affirming the decision.

Workers' CompensationParking Lot AccidentCourse of EmploymentPremises LiabilityPersonal ErrandAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEmployer Maintained PropertyInjuryConcurring Opinion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hatch v. Grand Union Co.

The claimant, a store manager, was injured while crossing the street to close the windows of his and co-employees' cars in a parking lot due to a sudden rainstorm. This practice of closing windows was known and acquiesced to by the employer to keep street parking available for customers. The Workmen's Compensation Board found that there was no deviation from employment. The decision was affirmed.

Parking Lot InjuryCourse of EmploymentDeviation from EmploymentSummer RainstormEmployee PracticeEmployer AcquiescenceWorkmen's Compensation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stratton v. New York State Comptroller

A claimant, employed by the Comptroller, sustained a broken ankle after slipping on black ice in a state-owned parking lot while walking to her office. She filed a workers' compensation claim, which was initially denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, awarding benefits and finding the accident compensable, reasoning that the employer had extended its premises to the parking lot by making parking arrangements for employees. The employer and its carrier appealed both the Board's decision and its denial of their request for reconsideration. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of a sufficient nexus between the parking facility and the employment.

Workers' CompensationParking Lot InjuryArising Out Of EmploymentCourse Of EmploymentPremises RuleSubstantial EvidenceBoard ReconsiderationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewBlack Ice
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2005

Claim of Fiero v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Claimant's decedent, an employee of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, was struck by a truck and died 16 days later after parking his car across the street from his office. Due to a heart condition, his employer had arranged for him to park in this lot. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship, awarding benefits. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was no special hazard at the off-premises location and the route was not controlled or endorsed by the employer, thus the accident was not a work-related hazard.

Workers CompensationScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Hazard ExceptionPublic Highway AccidentOff-Premises InjuryCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07467 [176 AD3d 1362]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of Molina v. Icon Parking LLC

This case concerns the calculation of an employee's average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits. Claimant Ramon Guerra Molina sustained injuries while working as a parking lot attendant for Icon Parking LLC. The Workers' Compensation Board initially established his average weekly wage using Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3), which resulted in a lower wage. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that the Board failed to explain why Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (2) could not be "reasonably and fairly applied" before resorting to § 14 (3). The court remitted the matter back to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings, including the submission of payroll records for similar employees, to determine the appropriate method for calculating the average weekly wage.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageWage CalculationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewRemittalPayroll RecordsParking Lot AttendantStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 10,562 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