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
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1996

Sanfilippo v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the defendant's motion to amend its answer to include the affirmative defense of workers' compensation exclusivity and also granted summary judgment based on this defense. Upon the plaintiff's motion to renew and reargue, the court adhered to its prior order. However, the appellate court unanimously modified this order. It affirmed the granting of the motion to amend the answer, citing no prejudice from the delay. Crucially, the appellate court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that there were unresolved questions of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was a 'special employee' of the defendant, specifically concerning the supervision and control of the plaintiff's work.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial Employment DoctrineMotion to Amend AnswerMotion to RenewMotion to ReargueQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor Law Defense
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schauder v. Pfeifer

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied her motion for summary judgment to dismiss an affirmative defense of workers' compensation and directed proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Board. The incident involved the plaintiff, an employee of Hazeltine Corporation, sustaining injuries in an automobile accident while commuting home in a van operated by coemployee Pfeifer. The appellate court modified the order, finding that the plaintiff's injuries arose out of her employment as a matter of law because the employer had assumed responsibility for her transportation via a van pool. Consequently, the defendants were granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint, as workers' compensation was deemed the exclusive remedy. The court also held that the defendants were not barred by laches from asserting the workers' compensation defense.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityVan PoolCourse of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewExclusive Remedy
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mournet v. Educational & Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry

The plaintiff was injured after slipping and falling at premises owned by the Educational and Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry (ECT), where her employer, Prudential Recreation Corp., doing business as JIB Lanes (JIB), leased space. The plaintiff sued both ECT and JIB. ECT asserted an affirmative defense that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy, claiming it was an alter ego of JIB. ECT moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against it, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6), (17). The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that ECT failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding JIB’s control over ECT’s day-to-day operations. Further discovery was also deemed warranted due to ECT's exclusive knowledge of some facts.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrinePersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewDiscoveryPrima Facie EntitlementEmployer LiabilityRelated Entities
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyso v. City of New York

In a wrongful death action, plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which permitted the defendant to amend its answer. The amendment sought to add an affirmative defense asserting the exclusive remedy of workers’ compensation. The defendant’s motion to amend was granted approximately three years after the initial answer was served. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. It reasoned that the plaintiffs were aware of the decedent's employment status and thus could not claim surprise or prejudice. The court also clarified that the workers' compensation defense is only waived if not raised until final disposition, concluding that the defendant’s alleged delay did not preclude the amendment.

Wrongful Death ActionWorkers' Compensation DefenseAmendment of PleadingsAffirmative DefenseCPLR 3025CPLR 3205PrejudiceLachesWaiverAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1979

Bradford v. Air La Carte, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured at a catering facility operated by defendant Air La Carte, Inc. (Air), a subsidiary of ARA Services, Inc. (ARA). Air asserted an exclusive remedy defense under Workers' Compensation Law, arguing plaintiff was its employee. Plaintiff moved to strike this defense, and Air cross-moved for summary judgment. Special Term, relying on a Workers' Compensation Board decision naming ARA as the employer, ruled that only ARA was the employer, thus allowing the negligence action against Air. The Appellate Court modified the decision, holding that res judicata did not apply to Air because it was not a party to the prior compensation proceeding. The court also determined that whether Air was plaintiff's employer was a factual issue due to ambiguous documents, requiring further trial to explore the relationship between the parent and subsidiary corporations.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelEmployer-Employee RelationshipParent-Subsidiary LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligence ActionAppellate ReviewDual Employment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2013

Conroy v. Incorporated Village

The plaintiffs, former lifeguards, initiated an action against their employer, the defendant municipality, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 203-c due to the surreptitious installation of a video recording device in their changing room. Additionally, they asserted common-law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The defendant subsequently sought to amend its answer to include affirmative defenses, specifically invoking the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law and noncompliance with notice of claim statutes (CPLR 9801 and General Municipal Law § 50-e). The court partially granted the defendant's motion, allowing the Workers’ Compensation Law defense to be asserted only against the intentional infliction of emotional harm claim. However, the court denied the application of this defense to the negligence claim, noting that Labor Law § 203-c provides cumulative remedies. Furthermore, the court denied the defendant's attempt to assert a defense based on defective notices of claim, deeming the plaintiffs' notices sufficient.

Labor LawVideo SurveillanceEmployer LiabilityEmotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendNotice of ClaimMunicipal LawCivil Procedure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruiz v. Chase Manhattan Bank

This case involves a plaintiff's action against Chase Manhattan Bank and its employee, Winslow Seale, for personal injury stemming from alleged negligence and breach of warranty concerning a prescription filled at an employer-run pharmacy in 1984. The defendants asserted workers' compensation as an exclusive remedy. However, the court found that because the pharmacy was accessible to a significant number of non-employees, the services were not exclusively for workers. Consequently, the defendants' affirmative defense of workers' compensation was struck, and their motion for summary judgment was denied. The court emphasized that for workers' compensation to be the exclusive remedy, employer-provided services must be available only to employees.

Personal InjuryNegligenceBreach of WarrantyWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyPharmacy ServicesEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseScope of Employment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike an affirmative defense presented by the defendant labor union. The union argued that the plaintiffs came to court with 'unclean hands' due to their alleged refusal to bargain collectively, constituting an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, as this power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board. The court clarified that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to *prevent* unfair labor practices, the court retains its inherent equitable power to deny relief to a party with 'unclean hands'. Therefore, the court found the union's defense legally sufficient and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike.

EquityInjunctionUnclean HandsNational Labor Relations ActLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionAffirmative DefenseMotion to StrikeCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Medi-Tech International Corp.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity. The same order had also granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment, striking that affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no basis to disregard evidence that the injured plaintiff's employer and the property owner where the injury occurred were distinct legal entities. This distinction meant the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law did not apply. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly struck the affirmative defense.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDistinct Legal EntitiesEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityAffirmative DefenseNew York LawJudgment Affirmation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,078 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