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

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1978

Di Bernardo v. Heimroth

This appeal arises from an order denying an employer's motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party complaint filed by Heimroth. The central legal question addresses whether an employer can be held liable to a third-party tort-feasor for their own negligence, even though Workers' Compensation Law generally bars direct employee actions against the employer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, reiterating that Workers' Compensation Law does not serve as a complete defense for an employer in actions involving a third-party tort-feasor's independent negligence. The prior ruling in Di Bernardo v Heimroth was cited as establishing a basis for employer contribution to a third-party tort-feasor, a point found to be dispositive of the current appeal.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party Tort-feasorEmployer LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewSection 29Workers' Compensation Defense
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1994

Kuznetz v. County of Nassau

The plaintiff, an adjunct professor at Nassau Community College, suffered a fractured ankle after tripping on a staircase at the college. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, she filed a negligence action against the College, the Board of Trustees, and the County of Nassau, alleging negligent maintenance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 as they were joint employers. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to establish that the County, the College, and the Board of Trustees were indeed the plaintiff's joint employers, thus barring the negligence action. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment should have been granted, dismissing the complaint against all parties.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawJoint EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNassau Community CollegeCounty of NassauEducation LawTrip and Fall
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trizzino v. Mildank Taxi Corp.

The plaintiff was injured when a taxicab crashed into their office. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against their employer, a coemployee, and Mildank Taxi Corporation, the taxi owner. An earlier motion by the employer and coemployee for summary judgment was granted, citing the Workers’ Compensation Law. Mildank Taxi Corporation's subsequent motion for summary judgment was initially denied. This appellate court reversed that denial, granting summary judgment to Mildank Taxi Corporation and dismissing the complaint against it. The court found that no negligence was pleaded against Mildank, and vicarious liability was not applicable due to coemployee immunity under workers' compensation.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVicarious LiabilityCoemployee ImmunityAppellate ProcedureOwner LiabilityTaxi AccidentDismissal of Complaint
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Afflito v. Estee Frocks, Inc.

The petitioner, a union member, sought to overturn an arbitrator's award concerning grievances against his employer, an application opposed by both the employer and the union. The petitioner argued his eligibility to bring the action as a third-party beneficiary of the contract. However, the court ruled it could not review the merits of the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator misconduct. Citing Matter of Soto (Goldman) and Parker v. Borock, the court determined that the petitioner, not being a direct party to the arbitration agreement, lacked the standing to challenge the award against the employer under the Civil Practice Act. The court clarified that remedies under the Civil Practice Act are limited to parties to the arbitration. It further suggested that the petitioner's sole recourse for a meritorious grievance would be against the union for failing to initiate arbitration or for negligence in prosecuting it. Consequently, the court denied the application and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had no direct remedy against the employer.

Arbitrator's AwardThird-Party BeneficiaryCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee GrievanceUnion RepresentationJudicial Review of ArbitrationCivil Practice ActStanding to SueEmployer LiabilityUnion Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2003

Miller v. Huntington Hospital

This case involves an appeal by the defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied their motion to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of contract and negligence. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff was an at-will employee, and the employer's personnel handbook contained an explicit disclaimer, thus precluding a breach of contract claim. Furthermore, the negligence claim was deemed barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law, as it did not allege an intentional or deliberate act by the employer directed at causing harm to the employee.

at-will employmentbreach of contractnegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211motion to dismissemployment handbookdisclaimerintentional tortexclusivity provision
References
15
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. ADJ11079458
Regular
Feb 19, 2020

MARCELINO GOROSTIETA (Deceased); REYNA RAMIREZ vs. RANCH OF THE GOLDEN HAWK; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that the applicant failed to prove serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Ranch of the Golden Hawk. The applicant alleged the employer's gross negligence in hiring an unlicensed contractor who subsequently hired the deceased. However, the Board determined the employer's manager, while careless in relying on a subordinate's recommendation, did not exhibit the required "quasi-criminal" disregard for safety. The evidence did not establish the employer knowingly placed the employee in a situation of obvious and extreme danger, distinguishing it from prior cases.

Serious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 4553Cal/OSHAwillful blindnessconscious disregardlicensed contractorworker safetyquasi-criminalemployer liabilitynegligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 1989

Matos v. Michele Depalma Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal arising from a motor vehicle accident on January 11, 1986, involving an employee, Noel D. Guneratne, and plaintiffs Dawn F. Carey, Christina M. Chevere, and Stephanie Brazee. Plaintiffs sought damages for negligence and wrongful death, arguing the defendant employer was liable under respondeat superior because Guneratne, while driving to work with the employer's cash receipts, was acting within the scope of his employment. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that an employee commuting to work is generally not acting within the scope of employment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the "dual purpose" principle did not apply as the necessity for Guneratne's travel to work was not created by the business purpose of transporting cash, but rather by his regular commute, regardless of the receipts.

Respondeat SuperiorScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentMotor Vehicle AccidentCommuting EmployeeNegligence DamagesWrongful Death ClaimAppellate Court DecisionDual Purpose DoctrineEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 12,230 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