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. 2022 NY Slip Op 02620
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Grigoryan v. 108 Chambers St. Owner, LLC

The plaintiffs, Vitaliy Grigoryan et al., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied their motion for summary judgment on liability against defendants 108 Chambers Street Owner, LLC and Ross & Associates, LLC under Labor Law § 240 (1). The case involved plaintiff Vitaliy Grigoryan sustaining injuries when a 300-500+ pound unsecured fire pump fell on his leg. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated because the heavy fire pump, capable of generating significant force, should have been secured against falling. They further clarified that it was irrelevant whether the object related to the plaintiff's direct work and that the hazard of the unsecured pump toppling was a foreseeable harm requiring protection.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentGravity Related InjuryUnsecured ObjectConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewLiabilityFalling ObjectForeseeability
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00995 [191 AD3d 526]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Gjeka v. Iron Horse Transp., Inc.

Martin Gjeka was injured in a traffic accident at a construction site, falling into an unguarded trench after being struck by a tractor-trailer driven by Michael Busch. The lawsuit involved Martin Gjeka and Drite Gjeka as plaintiffs, and Iron Horse Transport, Inc., Michael Busch, 108-11 East 116th Street LLC, and Re-Steel Supply Company, Inc. as defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court judgment, vacating awards for past pain and suffering, past loss of consortium, and future medical expenses. A new trial was ordered for the vacated awards unless the plaintiffs stipulated to a reduction of damages, and the court otherwise affirmed the judgment. The court upheld the jury's apportionment of 95% fault to 108-11 East 116th Street LLC and 5% to Michael Busch, as well as the awards for past and future lost earnings.

Personal InjuryVehicular AccidentConstruction Site AccidentVicarious LiabilityLabor LawWorkers' CompensationDamagesPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumMedical Expenses
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lippman v. Public Employment Relations Board

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Anjost Corp.

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Anjost Corporation and its principals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including issues with minimum wage, overtime pay, tip withholding, and uniform costs. The court addressed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, following a prior conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Evaluating the proposed classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were largely met. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification in a modified form, establishing three specific classes: a Tipped Employee Class, a Spread of Hours and Wage Statement Class, and a Uniform Claims Class. The decision also included orders for the defendants to disclose class member information and for both parties to jointly prepare a proposed class notice.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and Hour ClaimsOvertime WagesMinimum WageTip WithholdingUniform CostsWage StatementsSpread of Hours Premium
References
71
Case No. ADJ7960157 (RDG 0095395) ADJ4276340
Regular
Apr 03, 2013

DAVID SANDROCK vs. INDEPENDENT BUSINESS FORMS, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Independent Business Forms, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this reconsideration. The Board intends to further study the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this matter must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners.

SandrockIndependent Business FormsPreferred Employers Insurance CompanyADJ7960157ADJ4276340ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRedding District OfficeSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. ADJ4276340 RDG 0095395 ADJ7960157
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

David Sandrock vs. Independent Business Forms, Inc., Preferred Employers Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and amended a prior decision regarding David Sandrock's cumulative trauma claim. The WCAB found that Sandrock's cumulative trauma injury ending July 28, 2006, is not presumptively compensable because no claim form was filed with the employer, as required by Labor Code sections 5401 and 5402. The Board determined that the insurer, Preferred Employers, did not violate due process by submitting the case on briefs at a conference. The WCAB deferred the issue of injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderCumulative TraumaPresumptive CompensabilityClaim Form90-Day Investigation PeriodDue ProcessIndustrial InjuryAOE/COE
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mazzarella v. Cutting

The employer, Charles Cutting, and his workers' compensation carrier appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had denied the carrier's request for reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing the carrier's failure to file the prescribed form C-251.3 prior to the award of compensation. The carrier argued that neither Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) nor § 15 (8) (Z) explicitly required this specific form and that their timely filing of form C-251.2 provided notice to the Fund. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that 12 NYCRR 300.5 (e) mandates claims for reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) to be filed on a chair-prescribed form, which was C-251.3. The court reiterated the Board Chair’s authority to issue regulations and forms, and the Board’s right to insist on strict adherence to these requirements, deeming the argument regarding lack of prejudice to the Fund irrelevant.

Workers' Compensation LawReimbursementSpecial Disability FundForm C-251.3Form C-251.2Regulation AdherenceBoard Chair AuthorityAppellate DivisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier Claims
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01726 [192 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2021

Palermo v. 7 W. 21 LLC

The plaintiff, Frank Palermo, was injured while assisting a coworker in carrying a large wood form on a construction site. While the plaintiff rested his end of the form on vertical piping, his coworker unexpectedly lifted his side, causing the form to fall and strike the plaintiff's left foot. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, citing factual issues regarding whether the activity involved an elevation-related risk requiring the wood form to be secured under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, a factual question remained as to whether an appropriate safety device could have prevented the accident.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentElevation-Related RiskSafety DeviceFalling ObjectCoworker ActionLiability DisputeAppellate ReviewFactual Issues
References
6
Case No. 10 Civ. 0699
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. City of New York

This Opinion & Order by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin addresses the admissibility of 'decline to prosecute' (DP) forms in a class action against the City of New York. Plaintiffs sought to use these forms as evidence of the NYPD's alleged unconstitutional trespass stops and arrests in NYCHA buildings for class certification and trial. The City argued against their admission as hearsay and legal conclusions. The Court ruled the DP forms admissible, primarily under the business records exception (Rule 803(6)), and found arresting officers' statements admissible as party-opponent admissions. The decision emphasized the forms' probative value and the lack of alternative evidence, despite concerns about implied legal conclusions, given the unique context of a class action challenging systemic practices.

Admissibility of EvidenceHearsay ExceptionBusiness RecordsPolice PracticesTrespass ArrestsNYCHA BuildingsClass ActionFederal Rules of EvidenceProbable CauseLegal Conclusions
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 570 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