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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01881 [215 AD3d 722]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Andrade v. Bergen Beach 26, LLC

The plaintiff, Freddy Andrade, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on liability against Bergen Beach 26, LLC, for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Andrade was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder at a construction site where his employer was a subcontractor. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated and if such a violation was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction SiteLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityAppellate ReviewPrima FacieTriable Issues of FactSubcontractor
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04739 [241 AD3d 844]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Rivera v. 26 W. 56, LLC

Nancy Rivera, an employee of Alba Services, Inc., was injured during a building renovation project when an HVAC duct fell on her while she was removing demolition debris. She commenced an action against the property owner, 26 W. 56, LLC, and the general contractor, Abeco Construction, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss this cause of action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the HVAC duct required securing and fell due to an inadequate safety device, and also failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injuries.

Falling ObjectDemolition AccidentConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactWorker SafetyHVAC DuctProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates, LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Urbina, an electrician, sustained severe injuries after falling from a Baker scaffold at a construction site, leading to a fractured patella and multiple surgeries. He and his wife, Lucy Nunez, sued the premises owner, 26 Court Street Associates, LLC, the lessee/general contractor, Town Sports International, Inc. (TSI), and the drywall subcontractor, R & J Construction Corp. (R & J), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court's judgment, awarding substantial damages, was appealed, specifically regarding awards for pain and suffering. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, conditionally reducing the awards for past and future pain and suffering, while affirming the grant of contractual indemnity to TSI and Court Street against R & J, based on R & J's contractual obligation to provide scaffolding.

Construction site injuryScaffolding accidentPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLabor Law § 240(1)Damages modificationPain and suffering awardLost wages awardPatella fractureSubcontractor negligence
References
19
Case No. ADJ11896735; ADJ3117080
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

LORRAINE GONSALVES vs. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CAMP FIRE USA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) addressed a petition for removal filed by Lorraine Gonsalves (applicant) after she filed a document challenging previous orders, which the Board treated as a petition for removal. The applicant had previously sought reconsideration of a February 18, 2025 decision related to ADJ11896735 and sought review of March 26, 2025 orders taking ADJ3117080 off calendar and continuing ADJ11896735. The Board dismissed the petition for removal, finding that the February 18, 2025 decision was a non-final, interlocutory order from which a petition for reconsideration could not be taken and that the petition was untimely. Regarding the March 26, 2025 orders, the Board determined the applicant had not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPWCJOff CalendarContinued TrialSet Aside OrderLack of ProsecutionTimelinessFinal Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1986

Claim of Olmstead v. Royal Insurance

Claimant suffered a compensable injury on February 26, 1982, which led to total disability, then partial disability according to an orthopedic specialist's C-4 report, and later total disability again. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found total disability from February 26, 1982, to August 1, 1982, and partial thereafter, a finding affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employer appealed, arguing against total disability after June 25, 1982, claiming a reversion to a preexisting partial disability from a 1978 car accident. The court rejected this, finding substantial evidence that any preexisting condition was dormant. The employer's other contentions, regarding apportionment of liability and the claimant's alleged voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, were also dismissed, as they lacked record support or were adequately addressed by the Board's decision. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationTotal DisabilityPartial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketPreexisting ConditionAggravation of InjuryApportionment of LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceMedical Reports
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Dustin JJ.

This appeal concerns a Family Court order from Broome County, entered December 4, 2012, which adjudicated Dustin JJ. an abandoned child and terminated the respondent-father's parental rights. The child was placed in petitioner's custody shortly after birth in 2010, with the respondent declared the father in July 2011 and the mother surrendering her rights in August 2011. The petitioner initiated abandonment proceedings in February 2012, based on the respondent's failure to visit or communicate with the child or the agency during the critical six-month period from August 26, 2011, to February 26, 2012. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding, noting that the respondent's sporadic contacts (one visit and a few phone calls) were insufficient, and his incarceration did not excuse the lack of communication. The decision also upheld the Family Court's discretion in limiting cross-examination and dispensing with a dispositional hearing, reaffirming that a suspended judgment is not an available option after a finding of abandonment.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonment ProceedingSocial Services LawFamily Court AppealChild CustodyIncarcerated ParentFailure to CommunicateBurden of ProofDiscretion of Trial CourtSuspended Judgment
References
12
Case No. CA 12-00504
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

MILLER, DEBRA J. v. SAVARINO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

Plaintiff Debra J. Miller commenced a personal injury and wrongful death action after her decedent suffered a fatal heart attack at a building allegedly owned by defendant 26 Mississippi Street LLC, undergoing renovation. Defendant Savarino Construction Corporation was the construction manager. The decedent suffered a heart attack after ascending five flights of stairs to attach a temporary heat cannon. The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that 26 Mississippi did not own the building at the relevant times and Savarino Construction had no control over the work or premises. The court also dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action due to plaintiff's failure to allege a violation of a qualifying Industrial Code provision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Premises LiabilityOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liggett v. Daily Worker

The court modified an order by granting motions to vacate the judgment for defendants Daily Worker and Hathaway, but denied it for defendant Colodny. It also struck a provision allowing Colodny to appear for examination based on a 1937 stipulation. The modified order was affirmed without costs. The court noted that a prior order of February 8, 1938, did not direct Colodny to appear for examination on April 1, 1938, making the subsequent finding of Colodny in contempt on April 26, 1938, an error, though no appeal was taken. Hathaway's situation differed from the April 26, 1938 order, allowing him to obtain relief.

Judgment VacatedContempt of CourtOrder ModificationAppellate ReviewStipulationAffirmed JudgmentMotions to VacateProcedural ErrorJudicial Concurrence
References
3
Case No. Docket No. 26
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2007

In Re DRDGOLD Ltd. Securities Litigation

This consolidated class action was brought against DRDGOLD Limited (DRD), its chairman Mark Wellesley-Wood, and its CEO-CFO Ian Louis Murray, by various individual plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, representing investors who purchased DRD securities between October 23, 2003, and February 24, 2005, alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the restructuring of DRD's North West Operations (NWO) in South Africa, engaged in false and misleading financial reporting, and that Wellesley-Wood conducted insider stock sales at artificially inflated prices. DRD moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. Rules of Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted DRD's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter with sufficient particularity under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, although it found the loss causation allegations to be sufficient to survive dismissal. Leave to replead was granted to the plaintiffs.

Securities FraudClass ActionExchange Act of 1934PSLRAScienterPleading StandardsMaterial MisrepresentationInsider TradingGold Mining CompanyFinancial Reporting
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1979

Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer

The claimant-appellant's motion dated February 14, 1979, was denied without costs. Additionally, the court, on its own motion, dismissed the appeal from the board's decision filed September 29, 1978. The dismissal was based on the determination being nonfinal and therefore not appealable at this time. The court noted that dismissing the appeal should expedite the examination of the claimant by impartial specialists, which had been delayed due to the appeal's pendency. The claimant retains the right to seek review of any adverse rulings from the September 29, 1978 decision upon an appeal from the board's final decision in the case.

Motion PracticeAppeal DismissalNon-Final OrderExpedited ExaminationImpartial Specialists
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 945 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