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. 2020 NY Slip Op 07121 [188 AD3d 1292]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Villada v. 452 Fifth Owners, LLC

The plaintiff, Carlos Villada, was allegedly injured while working on a roof demolition project at property owned by 452 Fifth Owners, LLC. He was injured when a wheeled dumpster he was pulling up a plywood ramp tipped over. Villada commenced an action against 452 Fifth Owners, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court denied 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment dismissing these causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment. The court found that 452 Fifth established, prima facie, that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and did not have the authority to supervise or control the work. The cross-appeal by CBRE, Inc. was dismissed.

Personal InjuryRoof DemolitionSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReversalLabor Law ComplianceDangerous ConditionSupervision and Control
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 1995

Granieri v. 500 Fifth Avenue Associates

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). The court denied defendant 500 Fifth Avenue Associates' cross-motion to amend their answer to include Workers' Compensation as an exclusive remedy and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The denial was based on evidence that control and supervision over the plaintiff was exercised by Newmark Real Estate, Inc., the defendant's managing agent, refuting the claim that the plaintiff was a special employee of the defendant. The court also affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on the owner for injuries due to a failure to provide proper equipment, and the plaintiff's possible culpable conduct regarding ladder placement would not defeat the claim. Additionally, the court found no error in refusing to reinstate the third affirmative defense given the two-year delay in serving the verification of the bill of particulars.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilitySpecial EmployeePremises LiabilityAffirmative DefenseCulpable ConductLadder AccidentAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 1979

Bay v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, that denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer to include the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the motion and extending the defendants' time to answer. The court disagreed with the Special Term's determination that the defendants' two-year delay in seeking the amendment was unreasonable and that plaintiffs would be substantially prejudiced. It noted that the plaintiff wife failed to file a workers' compensation claim within the two-year period despite being aware of her condition and employment with the defendant hospital, implying potential eligibility for benefits. The decision clarifies that granting the motion does not preclude further exploration of whether workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy in cases where employees utilize employer-furnished services.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseAmended AnswerPrejudiceExclusive RemedyStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment BenefitsBreast Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dawkins v. Biondi Education Center

Plaintiff, a former employee of Leake & Watts and Biondi Education Center, filed a Fifth Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and unlawful discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He claims he was retaliated against and ultimately terminated for his union-organizing activities. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing they are not state actors and that Title VI claims are not applicable to union activity. The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants were acting under color of state law for the § 1983 claim, and that union activity is not a protected class under Title VI. The Fifth Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff one final opportunity to amend.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Title VIMotion to DismissState Action DoctrineCompulsion TestJoint Action TestPublic Function TestFirst AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Arzberger

The government moved to modify Jason Arzberger's bail conditions, seeking to add restrictions mandated by the Adam Walsh Amendments, including a curfew, electronic monitoring, a prohibition on witness contact, and a ban on firearm possession. Arzberger challenged these amendments as unconstitutional, arguing violations of Fifth Amendment due process, Eighth Amendment excessive bail, and the separation of powers doctrine. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV denied the government's motion, ruling that the automatic imposition of a curfew with electronic monitoring, firearm prohibition, and witness contact ban without individualized assessment violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court also indicated that the Excessive Bail Clause might be violated as applied to Arzberger, pending further hearing. The separation of powers argument was rejected. The denial was without prejudice, allowing the government to present an individualized justification for the conditions.

Bail ConditionsAdam Walsh AmendmentsChild PornographyDue ProcessFifth AmendmentEighth AmendmentExcessive Bail ClauseSeparation of PowersSecond AmendmentFirst Amendment
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A. Soloff & Son, Inc. v. Asher

A. Soloff & Son, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) regarding withdrawal liability, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment (due process and takings clause), the Seventh Amendment (right to a jury trial), and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. The District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Soloff's motion for summary judgment, finding the MPPAA constitutional, consistent with Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedents. The court dismissed Soloff's complaint and granted the Fund's cross-motion for summary judgment, affirming Soloff's withdrawal liability due to failure to timely arbitrate.

MPPAAERISAWithdrawal LiabilityConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentSeventh AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionSummary Judgment Motion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balaber-Strauss v. Town/Village of Harrison

Plaintiffs, including Loronda and Vincent Murphy and a bankruptcy trustee, brought a § 1983 action against the Town/Village of Harrison and its officials, alleging First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, alongside a state defamation claim. They asserted that defendants retaliated against them and chilled their First Amendment rights through defamatory public comments regarding a tax foreclosure of the Murphys' home. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that defamation claims are insufficient for a § 1983 action and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an actual chilling effect on their speech. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment claim was dismissed as inapplicable to state actors, and no Fourteenth Amendment violation was found. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law defamation claim, dismissing it without prejudice.

First AmendmentSection 1983DefamationMotion to DismissRetaliation ClaimChilling EffectSupplemental JurisdictionTax ForeclosureBankruptcy CodeDue Process
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soundview Associates v. Town of Riverhead

Sound-view Associates filed a lawsuit against the Town of Riverhead and other defendants, alleging violations of its First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The plaintiff claimed arbitrary denial of a special permit to construct a health spa, despite a pre-existing 1982 permit, and that defendants unlawfully coerced them into withdrawing a state court appeal by threatening to withhold approval for a separate clubhouse application from their tenant. The court partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing claims brought under the Fifth Amendment and those against the Town Board and Planning Department as duplicative. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the substantive due process, procedural due process, and First Amendment retaliation claims, finding that Sound-view Associates had sufficiently alleged a valid property interest, arbitrary infringement, and a chilled exercise of First Amendment rights. The motion to dismiss individual defendants Richard Ehlers and Dawn C. Thomas was also denied due to their alleged personal involvement in the unconstitutional actions.

Zoning disputeLand useSpecial permitHealth spaFirst AmendmentDue Process42 U.S.C. § 1983RetaliationCoercionProperty rights
References
95
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04692 [140 AD3d 922]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2016

Franklin v. Hafftka

Cynthia Franklin, acting as special guardian for George S. Franklin, commenced an action against Michael and Yonat Hafftka, asserting claims including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty related to a joint residential property purchase and shared living arrangement. George S. Franklin, who had a history of mental illness, had entered into this agreement with the Hafftka defendants. The defendants sought to dismiss several causes of action as time-barred or for failing to state a cause of action, while the plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend certain claims. The Supreme Court initially granted the dismissal of some causes of action and denied the cross-motion to amend. The Appellate Division modified this order, ruling that the defendants' motion to dismiss the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixteenth causes of action, and parts of the sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action as time-barred, should have been denied due to a question of fact regarding the application of fiduciary tolling or the "repudiation rule." The court affirmed the dismissal of the ninth cause of action for promissory estoppel and the eleventh for a purchase money resulting trust. Additionally, the Appellate Division granted the plaintiff leave to amend the fifth cause of action but denied amendment for the sixth and seventh causes of action.

Breach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyAiding and AbettingStatute of LimitationsFiduciary Tolling RuleRepudiation RulePromissory EstoppelPurchase Money Resulting TrustMotion to DismissLeave to Amend
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 3,815 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