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

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00654 [179 AD3d 1414]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Puli-Lopez v. Triple 888 Dev. Group LLC

Milton Puli-Lopez, a construction laborer, filed a workers' compensation claim after sustaining injuries, identifying Triple 888 Development Group LLC as his employer. The Workers' Compensation Board modified an earlier WCLJ decision, concluding that Puli-Lopez was solely employed by Triple 888 Development Group LLC and that no general/special employment relationship existed with East 119th Street Development LLC, despite shared ownership and property management. Triple 888 and East 119th appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the claimant's application for review was incomplete and that the WCLJ's findings were supported by evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in reviewing the claimant's application and concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination regarding sole employment.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipGeneral/Special EmployerConstruction InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceEmployer LiabilityAdministrative ProcedureRegulatory Compliance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. A.D. Development Ltd.

Frank Klein's motion to consolidate action numbers 1 and 2 was granted without opposition. Defendant Kala Zaveri, also president of A.D. Development Ltd., filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the consolidated action, arguing she was exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as an owner of a single-family dwelling. However, the court denied her motion, finding that the dwelling was part of a commercial enterprise intended for resale, not personal use. The court reasoned that the homeowner's exemption did not apply to commercial developers, emphasizing the statute's intent to place responsibility for worker safety on those best suited to provide such safeguards.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Homeowner ExemptionCommercial EnterpriseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyConsolidated ActionDeveloper LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08117 [155 AD3d 1633]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2017

Flowers v. Harborcenter Development, LLC

Plaintiff, David Flowers, was injured on a construction site when a bundle of steel rebar, being hoisted by a crane, fell and struck his head. He sued Harborcenter Development, LLC, and others under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted Flowers' motion for partial summary judgment on his § 240 (1) claim and partially denied the defendants' cross-motion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the granting of summary judgment on the § 240 (1) claim, finding sufficient evidence of a falling object due to inadequate safety devices. However, the court modified the order, granting the defendants' cross-motion regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-6.1 (d), as that regulation's mandate does not apply to the type of crane used. The court also found triable issues of fact remaining for the § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (f) (6).

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1) ClaimFalling ObjectSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewIndustrial Code ViolationProximate CauseComparative NegligenceCrane OperationsRebar Movement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cotazino v. Basil Development Corp.

Plaintiffs sued Basil Development Corporation and Peter Baltis for breach of contract/warranty and negligence after purchasing a home with numerous defects and water leaks. The jury awarded plaintiffs $20,000 for breach of contract/warranty and $17,000 for negligence, rejecting defendants' counterclaim. On appeal, the court found sufficient evidence for the contract claim but reduced the negligence award to $2,182.96, attributing only specific damages to negligence. Furthermore, the court reversed the imposition of personal liability on Peter Baltis, stating insufficient evidence to disregard the corporate entity of Basil Development Corporation. Finally, the court clarified the calculation of interest, affirming September 10, 1986, for the contract claim and establishing August 31, 1987, as the date for the negligence claim interest.

Breach of ContractBreach of WarrantyNegligenceCorporate VeilPersonal LiabilityDamagesInterest CalculationReal PropertyHome ConstructionDefective Workmanship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 1998

Nos v. Greenpoint Manufacturing & Design Center Local Development Corp.

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center Local Development Corporation, the owner and lessor of a property, appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification against S & G Woodworking, Inc. A worker employed by S & G was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder on Greenpoint's premises. The appellate court found no evidence that Greenpoint supervised or controlled the plaintiff's work, thus establishing its right to indemnification from S & G. The order was reversed, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and Greenpoint was deemed entitled to recover legal expenses incurred in defending the plaintiff's claims.

Personal InjuryCommon-law indemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker InjuryPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityLessor LiabilityThird-party actionLegal Expenses
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

This case involves consolidated appeals challenging the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation's (RIOC) approval of the Related/Hudson site plan for Southtown development. Petitioners, Alternative Southtown Design Committee and Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development, argued RIOC failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that the plan violated the General Development Plan (GDP). The Supreme Court's judgment, which had dismissed RIRSD's petition as untimely, was modified on appeal, finding the petition timely but denying it on the merits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Alternative's petition and the denial of RIRA's intervention, concluding that RIOC took the requisite "hard look" at environmental impacts and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court found petitioners lacked standing to challenge the GDP's breach as they were merely incidental beneficiaries.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactGeneral Development PlanRoosevelt IslandLand UseUrban DevelopmentSite PlanJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Law
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 11,855 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