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. ADJ7618189
Regular
Nov 26, 2012

RUBEN OROZCO vs. EXACT STAFF, INC.; TOWER/NSM INSUREX, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case involves lien claimants Anderson Chiropractic and Santana Lopez seeking reconsideration of an order disallowing their liens. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because a crucial exhibit, Exhibit 6, was incomplete in the record. Lien claimants are ordered to file a complete copy of Exhibit 6 within 10 days to allow the Board to properly review the case. This action is necessary for the Board to study the facts and applicable law concerning the disallowed liens.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantsFindings and OrdersDisallowed liensExhibit 6Administrative law judgeWCJSupplemental pleadingSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01738 [192 AD3d 953]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Andres v. North 10 Project, LLC

The plaintiff, Mieczyslaw Andres, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when an electrical panel box he was removing fell and struck him. He appealed from an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants North 10 Project, LLC, and HSD Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the electrical panel box was an object requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionFalling Object DoctrineAppellate DivisionLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01287 [214 AD3d 785]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2023

Mora v. 1-10 Bush Term. Owner, L.P.

John Mora, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife, sued 1-10 Bush Terminal Owner, L.P. after he fell from a ladder during demolition work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendant appealed this decision, challenging the grant of summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentDemolition WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240 (1)Proximate CauseNondelegable DutyElevated Work SitesSafety Devices
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trapani v. 10 Arial Way Associates

Cesare Trapani, an employee of P & W Electric, Inc., was injured at a construction site owned by 10 Arial Way Associates and managed by The Marcus Organization, Inc. Both property owner and manager sought defense and indemnification as additional insureds under an insurance policy issued by Assurance Company of America to P & W. A Judicial Hearing Officer initially found them to be additional insureds, a finding upheld by the Supreme Court which denied summary judgment to P & W and Assurance. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court determined that the work contract did not expressly or specifically require additional insured coverage, and a certificate of insurance alone was insufficient. Consequently, the motions by P & W Electric, Inc. and Assurance Company of America were granted, the cross-motions by 10 Arial Way Associates and The Marcus Organization, Inc. were denied, and a judgment was entered declaring that the latter are not entitled to insurance coverage as additional insureds.

Additional InsuredInsurance PolicyContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentConstruction Site InjuryThird-Party LiabilityCertificate of Insurance ValidityWork ContractAppellate Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. 1:10-CV-00543; 1:10-CV-00544; 1:10-CV-00546; 1:10-CV-00549; 1:10-CV-00569
Regular Panel Decision

Donohue v. Paterson

The court addresses five consolidated motions for preliminary injunctions filed by various public employee organizations and individuals against New York State officials, including Governor David A. Paterson. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the implementation of emergency appropriation 'extender bills' which imposed unpaid furloughs, wage freezes, and benefits freezes, arguing these measures violated the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution by impairing existing collective bargaining agreements. The court granted the preliminary injunctions, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm due to the significant financial impact and lack of federal remedy, and a likelihood of success on the merits. The court concluded that the state's actions constituted a substantial impairment of contracts without demonstrating reasonable and necessary means to address the fiscal crisis, especially given the state's self-interest as a party to the contracts and the lack of proper legislative deliberation.

preliminary injunctioncontract clausecollective bargaining agreementswage freezefurloughsfiscal crisisstate employees rightsgovernment contractslegislative powerexecutive action
References
19
Case No. CA 10-02440
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2011

FARM FAMILY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMP v. BRADY FARMS, INC.

Plaintiff Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company sought a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify defendant Brady Farms, Inc. regarding fatal injuries to an employee, as defendant lacked workers' compensation insurance. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the defendant, obligating the plaintiff. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed this decision, holding that the defendant's liability stemmed from its failure to secure workers' compensation benefits, a statutory obligation, rather than directly from the bodily injury. Consequently, the court found no coverage under the plaintiff's Special Farm Package "10" policy and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Insurance CoverageWorkers' CompensationDeclaratory JudgmentDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentStatutory LiabilityFarm Insurance PolicyAppellate ReviewExclusion Clause
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horowitz v. Secretary of State of New York

Ten electors representing the Socialist Workers party in New York filed independent nominating petitions for presidential and vice-presidential electors. The Secretary of State refused to place their names on voting machines, citing that the party had nominated only 10 electors instead of the 43 the state is entitled to, and offered ballot slips as an alternative. The electors initiated a proceeding to compel the Secretary of State to include their names on the voting machines. The court, referencing sections of the Election Law and previous rulings, found that the law does not mandate a complete slate of electors. It concluded that denying the Socialist Workers party a place on the voting machines, unlike major parties, would constitute discriminatory disenfranchisement of their voters. Therefore, the petition was granted.

Election LawPresidential ElectorsVoting MachinesIndependent CandidatesBallot AccessVoter DisenfranchisementNew YorkSecretary of StateSpecial ProceedingEqual Protection
References
3
Case No. 08 Civ. 10467; 10 Civ. 6067
Regular Panel Decision

Astra Oil Trading NV v. PRSI Trading Co. LP

Astra Oil Trading N.Y. (AOT) filed two actions against PRSI Trading Company L.P. (PRSI Trading) seeking indemnification and attachment of funds related to a $156 million guarantee payment. PRSI Trading moved to dismiss both actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to vacate the attachment, also requesting damages and attorneys' fees. The court granted dismissal for the first action (08 Civ. 10467) due to a lack of diversity jurisdiction at the time of filing, which a subsequent change in defendant's ownership could not remedy. However, it denied dismissal for the second action (10 Civ. 6067), noting proper diversity existed at its filing. The court allowed a new attachment in the second action to preserve the status quo, citing the defendant's continuous delays and acknowledged debt. Furthermore, the court denied PRSI Trading's claims for damages and attorneys' fees for wrongful attachment, emphasizing AOT's good faith and the complex legal issues surrounding corporate citizenship for diversity purposes.

Diversity JurisdictionAttachment OrderIndemnification ClaimCorporate CitizenshipPrincipal Place of BusinessSubject Matter JurisdictionAlien CorporationsArbitration Award EnforcementCollateral EstoppelWrongful Attachment
References
52
Case No. 07 Civ. 2935
Regular Panel Decision

Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Cuomo

The case involves a declaratory judgment action by Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS) challenging the constitutionality of several provisions of the New York Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA), codified in New York Mental Hygiene Law (MHL) Article 10. MHLS argued that SOMTA's provisions regarding civil management of sex offenders after prison terms violate due process and equal protection. Specifically, MHLS challenged sections related to pre-probable cause detention (§ 10.06(f)), mandatory involuntary civil detention pending trial (§ 10.06(k)), evidentiary standards for incompetent defendants (§ 10.07(d)), retroactive sexual motivation determinations (§ 10.07(c)), and pre-hearing psychiatric examinations without counsel (§ 10.05(e)). The court granted MHLS's motion for summary judgment regarding §§ 10.06(k), 10.07(c), and 10.07(d), finding them facially unconstitutional and permanently enjoining their enforcement. It denied MHLS's motion and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding §§ 10.06(f) and 10.05(e), concluding that these provisions were capable of constitutional application.

Sex Offender Management and Treatment ActSOMTAMHL Article 10Civil CommitmentDue ProcessFacial ChallengeProbable CausePsychiatric ExaminationArticle 730 DefendantsClear and Convincing Evidence
References
65
Showing 1-10 of 1,305 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