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

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ewing v. YMCA

Claimant, a kitchen worker, sustained a left leg injury in September 1989, leading to a schedule loss of use award in November 2001. After the last compensation payment, the claimant requested to reopen her case in October 2004, which was denied as it lacked grounds for reopening. A subsequent request in June 2005, supported by a March 2005 medical report indicating a worsened condition, led the Workers' Compensation Board to reopen the case and transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. The Special Fund appealed, challenging the Board's determination that the 2004 letter did not constitute a proper reopening application. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported that the 2004 letter lacked sufficient grounds for reopening, thus upholding the transfer of liability to the Special Fund based on the June 2005 request.

Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardSpecial FundMedical ReportLiability TransferAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewWorsened Condition
References
10
Case No. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05370 [174 AD3d 1026]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Matter of Rexford v. Gould Erectors & Riggers, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding liability for death benefits. The decedent suffered heart attacks in 1987 and 1991, with liability for his workers' compensation claim transferring to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 1997. Following his death in 2016, his administrator sought death benefits, alleging the 1987 heart attack contributed to his demise. A WCLJ and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the State Insurance Fund was the proper carrier, citing American Economy Ins. Co. v State of New York and Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), thereby absolving the Special Fund. The carrier appealed, arguing that Matter of Misquitta v Getty Petroleum should control. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, confirming that the Special Fund is liable for consequential death claims if liability was transferred before January 1, 2014, as in this case.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesHeart AttackCausally Related DeathLiability TransferAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentJudiciary LawWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-a
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of White v. Consolidated Edison

The case involves a claimant who suffered a right knee injury in 2003 and a neck/back injury in 2005. The Workers' Compensation Board shifted liability for the 2003 claim to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2011. The Special Fund appealed, arguing that a prior 2009 Workers' Compensation Law Judge decision to open the 2003 claim and have it travel with the 2005 claim barred the shifting of liability. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board failed to address the Special Fund's argument. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings and necessary findings of fact.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesSchedule Loss of UseReopened CasesLiability ShiftAppellate ReviewRemittalProcedural ErrorKnee InjuryWork-Related Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Palermo v. Primo Coat Corp.

The claimant, a seamstress, sustained a work-related right knee injury in 2000 and later had her claim amended to include other ailments, though a consequential left elbow injury remained unresolved. She was permanently disqualified from lost wage benefits in 2005 due to fraudulently collecting workers' compensation benefits, but her medical expenses continued. In 2008, the employer and its carrier sought to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, which the Workers' Compensation Board granted. The Special Fund appealed, arguing the case was not truly closed due to the unresolved left elbow injury. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that even with outstanding issues related to medical expenses, the case was considered truly closed for compensation purposes as the claimant was disqualified from lost wage benefits.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLost Wage BenefitsMedical ExpensesCase ClosureFraudulent CollectionPetit LarcenyLiability ShiftWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 30,179 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