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. ADJ9621646
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

VIOLETA GOMEZ vs. FAIRVIEW ASSOCIATES, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Removal filed in the case of Violeta Gomez v. Fairview Associates. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. This order means the petition seeking removal from a lower decision was unsuccessful.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportdismissADJ9621646Salinas District Officeadministrative law judgeFairview AssociatesProCentury Insurance CompanyIllinois Midwest Insurance Agency
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Production Associates, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted McDonald’s Corporation’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The primary action involved Thomas E. Twyford, a McDonald's employee, who sued Production Associates for injuries suffered at a convention. Production Associates then sought contribution from McDonald's. The Supreme Court initially applied Pennsylvania law, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that Illinois law should apply based on an 'interests analysis' approach, as both Production Associates and McDonald's have significant ties to Illinois. Illinois workers' compensation law, unlike Pennsylvania's or New Jersey's, does not preclude third-party contribution claims against an employer.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1993

Abreu v. Manhattan Plaza Associates

Antonio Abreu sustained personal injuries when a heavy electrical transformer fell on his hand while he was removing a shipping pallet. He and his wife initiated an action against Manhattan Plaza Associates, the building owner, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Although the jury found Manhattan Plaza not negligent, it found violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), leading to a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs based on absolute liability. Manhattan Plaza Associates appealed, arguing that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the object fell from a "miniscule height," and plaintiffs failed to allege a specific "concrete" Industrial Code provision for Labor Law § 241 (6). The appellate court concurred, modifying the judgment to dismiss the complaint against Manhattan Plaza Associates.

Personal InjuryLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityElevated WorksiteIndustrial CodeConstruction WorkAppellate DecisionJury VerdictDamagesNegligence
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 1994

Lemma v. Forest City Pierrepont Associates

Plaintiff Michael Lemma instituted an action, joined by his wife for loss of consortium, to recover damages for Labor Law violations after he sustained injuries on May 19, 1987, when struck by a falling piece of steel at a construction site. Third-party defendants A.C. Associates, plaintiff's employer, and Steel Structures Corporation, performing structural steel work, were impleaded by the property owners and general contractor. A jury initially apportioned liability 80% to A.C. Associates and 20% to Steel Structures Corporation. The Supreme Court modified the judgment, finding the apportionment against the weight of the evidence and directing a new trial on liability unless the third-party defendants consent to a 50% each apportionment, based on Steel Structures Corporation's responsibilities for safety decking and its employee's negligence. The court also affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectApportionment of LiabilityThird-Party ActionJury Verdict ReviewAppellate DivisionNegligenceWorkplace SafetyNew Trial Conditional
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Rosbrock Associates Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Eduardo Londono Diaz, an employee of New Rochelle Hotel Association (NRHA), sustained injuries while working at the Ramada Plaza Hotel. He commenced an action against Rosbrock Associated Limited Partnership (Rosbrock), the landowner, alleging violations of the Labor Law. Rosbrock, which leased the land to NRHA, moved for summary judgment, arguing that NRHA and Rosbrock were effectively the same entity for Workers' Compensation Law purposes due to identical general and limited partners, thus precluding a lawsuit against the landowner under exclusive remedy provisions. The court granted Rosbrock's motion for summary judgment, finding that despite being separately maintained for tax and legal compliance, the identical partnership makeup rendered them a single entity for workers' compensation, thereby dismissing Diaz's action.

Limited Partnership LiabilityExclusive Remedy DoctrineIdentity of EntitiesLandowner Employer StatusSummary Judgment GrantLabor Law ViolationsPartnership LawStatutory DutyWorkplace Injury ClaimBoiler Maintenance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1992

McNair v. Morris Avenue Associates

This case concerns appeals by Morris Avenue Associates, the property owner, and Stony Brook Projects, Inc., the general contractor, from an order denying their cross-motions for summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Metal Manufacturing Co., the subcontractor. The plaintiff, Randall McNair, an employee of Metal, was injured in a construction accident and had previously been awarded summary judgment against Morris Avenue and Stony Brook for a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation. The appellate court determined that Morris Avenue and Stony Brook, being only vicariously liable, were entitled to full common-law indemnification from Metal Manufacturing Co., whose negligence was the sole cause of the worker's injuries. Consequently, the original order was modified to grant the cross-motions for summary judgment for indemnification to Morris Avenue Associates and Stony Brook Projects, Inc., against Metal Manufacturing Co., and as so modified, the order was affirmed.

Personal InjuryCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentLabor LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractorVicarious LiabilityConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionSuffolk County
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04286
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2024

Reeves v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.

This case concerns a defamation lawsuit filed by Karl Reeves and his associated companies against Associated Newspapers Ltd. and reporter Anneta Konstantinides. The lawsuit stemmed from an online article detailing Reeves' contentious divorce, child custody battle, and prior criminal charges. Defendants argued the claims constituted a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and were protected under fair report privilege. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint but denied attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Appellate Division clarified the "substantial basis in law" standard for anti-SLAPP suits, ruling it is a higher bar than merely avoiding frivolousness. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims lacked this substantial basis, thus entitling defendants to mandatory attorneys' fees. The case was modified to grant defendants' motion under CPLR 3211(g) and remanded for calculation of fees.

SLAPP suitAnti-SLAPP lawDefamationCivil Rights LawCPLR 3211(g)Attorneys' feesPublic interestSubstantial basisFair report privilegeTortious interference
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v. Friedman, Khafif & Associates

This case involves a fee dispute between successor law firm Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP, and predecessor firm Friedman, Khafif & Associates, regarding a personal injury action for Pedro Colon. The trial court (IAS court) initially ruled that Friedman, Khafif & Associates forfeited its right to a fee due to alleged misconduct, including failure to file a derivative claim for Mrs. Colon, settling without client consent, and delayed retainer statement filing. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding no evidence of misconduct. It determined that the Friedman Firm's actions were proper, the settlement was conditional, and the retainer statement delay was ministerial. Consequently, the Friedman Firm was awarded a percentage of the initial settlement offer it secured, and Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP was awarded its negotiated share of the enhanced settlement amount.

Fee DisputeAttorney MisconductDischarge for CauseQuantum MeruitContingency FeeLegal EthicsAttorney LienPersonal InjurySettlement AgreementAppellate Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,198 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