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
Jan 29, 1998

O'Connor v. Lincoln Metrocenter Partners, L.P.

Plaintiff, an employee of S&A Concrete Co., suffered an injury on January 3, 1994, when he fell into an uncovered floor opening at a construction site while stripping forms. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied defendant-appellant R&J Construction Corp.'s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, R&J Construction Corp. contended that the plaintiff was not engaged in gravity-related work covered by Labor Law § 240 (1), but the appellate court affirmed, finding the plaintiff was protected as a person employed in the erection of a building. The court further determined that R&J, as an agent of the general contractor Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc., had the duty to cover floor openings and was thus liable under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200. The appellate court also affirmed the lower court's effective grant of a motion to amend pleadings, allowing the plaintiff to assert specific Industrial Code violations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i) and 23-2.4 (b) (1) (i)). An appeal from a subsequent order denying reargument was dismissed as nonappealable.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentGravity-Related RiskFloor Opening SafetyContractor LiabilityAgent LiabilityIndustrial Code
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2006

Velasco v. Green-Wood Cemetery

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for future lost earnings. The plaintiff had previously been granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the plaintiff failed to provide admissible evidence to counter the defendants' showing that he returned to work four months post-accident. While the Workers' Compensation Board found a 'permanent partial disability' and awarded benefits, these benefits only covered the four-month period immediately following the accident, with no finding of inability to return to work. The anticipated expert testimony was deemed not to be 'evidentiary proof in admissible form'.

Summary JudgmentLost EarningsFuture Lost EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor LawWorkers' Compensation BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceVocational RehabilitationOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drouillard v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.

The Plaintiff brought claims of hostile work environment based on race and gender, as well as retaliation, against the Defendant employer. The court found sufficient evidence to deny summary judgment for the race-based hostile work environment claim, citing repeated use of racial epithets by a coworker, Elkilany. However, the court granted summary judgment for the gender-based hostile work environment claims, finding the allegations of sexual proposition and general use of 'bitch' insufficiently severe. All retaliation claims were also dismissed, as the Plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her protected activities and the alleged adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment against the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, finding no evidence of malice or reckless indifference on the employer's part.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial HarassmentGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace DiscriminationRacial SlursSexual Harassment AllegationsEmployer Liability
References
89
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1994

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Kenneth Yesmont & Associates, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund (plaintiff) initiated a lawsuit to recover $18,135.35 in workers' compensation premiums from Kenneth Yesmont & Associates (defendant), which included liabilities for subcontractors lacking coverage. Initially, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and referred the payroll classification issue to the Superintendent of Insurance for review. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that the dispute primarily concerned coverage, a matter within the court's jurisdiction, rather than merely classification. Finding no factual dispute regarding the subcontractors' coverage or the plaintiff's audit calculations, the appellate court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for $16,369.75.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPayroll ClassificationAdministrative ReviewNew York LawState Insurance FundEmployer Responsibility
References
4
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Jan Transport, Inc.

Plaintiff Francisco Lopez was injured while loading a trailer for defendant Knickerbocker Dispatch, Inc., with defendant Jan Transport, Inc. acting as the dispatcher. Both companies were controlled by the same principals and insured under the same workers’ compensation policy. Lopez initially received workers’ compensation benefits, with the Workers’ Compensation Board finding dual employment by both defendants. Subsequently, Lopez sued both defendants. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on the workers’ compensation awards. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting both defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint, citing the preclusive effect of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s prior findings of employment.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDual EmploymentRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryMotion to Renew
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Pavarini Construction

Plaintiff, a carpenter, sustained injuries when a form wall fell on his hand during the construction of a new building. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. This court reversed that decision, holding that Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.2 (a), which mandates proper bracing for forms, applies to forms even during their construction phase, not just when they are completed. The court found that the back form wall was not properly braced, leading to the plaintiff's injury, and distinguished the defendants' cited precedents.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code 23-2.2(a)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorker SafetyConcrete FormworkBracing RequirementsStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Continental Casualty Co.

Peterson sued Continental Casualty Company (CNA) seeking short- and long-term disability benefits under ERISA. CNA denied the claims, arguing Peterson was not disabled from a modified, sedentary desk job CBS assigned him after his injury. Peterson cross-moved for summary judgment and sought to add CBS as a defendant for failing to provide plan documents. The court denied both summary judgment motions, finding CNA's interpretation of Peterson's 'regular occupation' as the temporary desk job to be arbitrary and capricious. The court remanded both disability claims to the Claim Administrator to re-evaluate based on Peterson's actual regular occupation prior to his injury, noting that an 'accommodation' job is not the 'regular occupation'. Peterson's request to amend the complaint to add CBS was also denied due to lack of demonstrated prejudice and insufficient grounds for ERISA sanctions.

ERISADisability BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDe Novo ReviewClaim Administrator DiscretionRegular Occupation DefinitionTotal Disability DefinitionCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSpinal Cord Compression
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. Estée Lauder Corp.

Daniel Russo, a former Estée Lauder employee, sued the company alleging disability discrimination, retaliation for a prior lawsuit, and breach of a settlement agreement related to his long-term disability benefits. The defendant, Estée Lauder, moved for summary judgment on all claims, while Russo and his attorney, Frederick K. Brewington (third-party defendants), also moved for summary judgment on Estée Lauder's counterclaims for breach of confidentiality. The court granted Estée Lauder's motion for summary judgment on Russo's amended complaint, dismissing all his claims (breach of contract, Title VII, ADA, and New York Executive Law § 296). The court also denied the third-party defendants' motion for summary judgment on Estée Lauder's counterclaims, finding triable issues of fact regarding alleged breaches of the confidentiality provisions. Additionally, Estée Lauder's motion to strike certain documents was granted in part, and its motion for sanctions against Russo and his attorney was denied.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractRetaliation ClaimDisability DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York Executive Law § 296ERISA PreemptionSettlement AgreementConfidentiality Breach
References
72
Showing 1-10 of 20,235 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