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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03231 [194 AD3d 1290]
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Matter of George

The case concerns the estate of Mathai Kolath George, where the initial executor, Annie Kolath, engaged in self-dealing by purchasing the Llenroc Mansion through Power Angels, LLC, after terminating the decedent's prior contract. Following her removal, successor executors were appointed, leading to the current administrator, Andrew B. Jarosh, filing a petition seeking judicial settlement and a constructive trust on the property. Surrogate's Court dismissed the constructive trust claim as time-barred, prompting an appeal by Anil Paulose, Elizabeth Paulose, Thomas K. George, and Sharon George. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this dismissal, applying the fiduciary tolling rule, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Estate LawConstructive TrustFiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsTolling RuleSelf-DealingExecutors and AdministratorsAppellate ProcedureProperty DisputeReal Estate
References
17
Case No. CV-22-2040
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of George Mina

Claimant George Mina appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found his failure to attend independent medical examinations (IMEs) unreasonable. Mina, who injured his back in December 2020, missed two scheduled IMEs in Manhattan, citing the unreasonableness of travel from his New Jersey residence. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found no good cause for his absence but directed the employer to schedule an IME within 30 miles of his home. The Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, citing that the IME location in Manhattan (22.3 miles from claimant's residence) was within a "reasonable distance" as per Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (4).

Workers' CompensationIndependent Medical ExaminationIMETravel DistanceUnreasonable RefusalSuspension of PaymentsBack InjuryNew Jersey ResidenceManhattan IMEAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. CV-24-0636
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Felipe Zamora Ramales

Claimant Felipe Zamora Ramales, a pizzeria kitchen assistant, suffered severe burns after a fall down basement stairs while carrying a large pot of hot tomato sauce. Emergency notes indicated a high blood alcohol content, leading the employer and carrier to argue his injuries were solely due to intoxication and thus not compensable. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, establishing the claim and finding that intoxication was not the sole cause, invoking the presumption of compensability under Workers' Compensation Law § 21 (4). The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that the carrier failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required to rebut the presumption. The court reasoned that navigating a heavy pot down stairs was a contributory factor in the accident, preventing intoxication from being the exclusive cause.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefensePresumption of CompensabilityWorkplace AccidentBurn InjuryBlood Alcohol ContentSole CauseContributory FactorAppellate ReviewCredibility Assessment
References
9
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 09098
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2014

Cives Corp. v. George A. Fuller Co., Inc.

Cives Corporation sued George A. Fuller Company, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for breach of contract and on a performance bond related to a construction project. The Supreme Court granted Fuller's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint due to a contractual one-year limitation period. Cives appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the judgment, holding that Cives raised triable issues of fact concerning whether work was performed within the one-year period prior to commencing the action. Consequently, the complaint was reinstated against both defendants.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentContractual Limitation PeriodConstruction ProjectPerformance BondMechanic's LienAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactTimeliness of ActionReinstatement of Complaint
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ahluwalia v. St. George's University, LLC

Nitesh Ahluwalia, a Canadian citizen, initiated a diversity action against St. George’s University, LLC, University Support Services, LLC (collectively, "St. George Defendants"), Danielle Rosen, and Does I-XX. This second lawsuit followed the dismissal of a similar prior action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ahluwalia alleged breach of contract, negligent hiring, training, and supervision against the St. George Defendants, and tortious interference with contractual relations and fraud against Rosen. The core of the complaint stemmed from Ahluwalia's dismissal from medical school after Rosen accused him of assault, which Ahluwalia contested with video evidence. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and insufficient service of process (Rosen). The Court granted the defendants' motions, finding that Ahluwalia failed to plead the existence of a contract with the St. George Defendants or adequately link the alleged tortfeasors to them for negligent supervision. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the tortious interference and fraud claims against Rosen, citing insufficient pleading regarding specific contracts, Rosen's knowledge, and the reliance element of fraud. The Court also denied the plaintiff's request for leave to replead.

Civil ProcedureDiversity JurisdictionMotion to DismissBreach of ContractNegligent SupervisionTortious InterferenceFraudService of ProcessStudent DisciplineMedical Education
References
72
Case No. Nos. 56, 57 & 58
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2023

George Hoehmann v. Town of Clarkstown , The Matter of Frank Borelli v. Town of Clarkstown, The Matter of Rosalind Jacobson v. George A. Hoehmann

These three appeals involve challenges to Local Law No. 9-2014, adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Clarkstown in 2014, which purports to set an eight-year term limit for all Clarkstown elected officials and requires a supermajority vote of the Town Board to repeal. These actions were brought seeking a determination that the law is invalid because it was never subject to a referendum of the Town’s voters. Appellants contended that the challenge was time-barred. The court disagreed, holding that a local law requiring a mandatory referendum that was not held lacks operative effect and cannot become operative through the mere passage of time. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that Local Law No. 9-2014 has no legal force or effect.

Election LawTerm LimitsMandatory ReferendumLocal LawMunicipal Home RuleValidity of LawStatute of LimitationsAppellate ProcedureCourt of AppealsClarkstown
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

George v. Intercontinental Transportation, Ltd.

Stanley George, a longshoreman employed by Sealand Terminals, Inc., initiated this action under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act against Intercontinental Transportation Ltd., the vessel owner, and Standard Fruit & Steamship Company, the charterer. George sought damages for personal injuries sustained when he fell into an open space between ventilation battens while unloading the SANTA MARTA. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that his injuries were caused by the vessel’s negligence, concluding that the primary responsibility for ensuring safety rested with the stevedore, which failed to implement known remedial measures. Additionally, the court found no basis to impose liability on the Charterer, rejecting claims of third-party beneficiary status and duties related to vessel inspection or equipment supply. Consequently, judgment was entered for the defendants, and their cross-claims were dismissed as moot.

LongshoremenHarbor WorkersVessel NegligenceStevedore DutyPersonal InjuryCargo UnloadingShipowner LiabilityCharterer LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryWorkplace Safety
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee Myles Associates Corp. v. Abrams

The petitioners, Lee Myles Associates Corporation and Charles George, filed a CPLR article 78 petition seeking to vacate a determination by the Attorney-General of the State of New York dated June 10, 1982. The Attorney-General had refused to register Lee Myles's franchise offering prospectus due to Charles George's prior felony conviction. Petitioners contended this rejection was arbitrary and violated their due process rights. The court found that the petitioners were denied procedural due process, specifically the opportunity for a full hearing, to confront witnesses, and to subpoena witnesses. Consequently, the court granted the petition to the extent of vacating the Attorney-General's determination and ordered a new de novo hearing on the franchise application, while denying the request for interim relief.

Procedural Due ProcessFranchise Sales ActGeneral Business LawFelony ConvictionAdministrative HearingArticle 78 PetitionDe Novo HearingFranchise RegistrationDue Process RightsProperty Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gjertsen v. Mawson & Mawson, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a dockworker at a construction site. The plaintiff's employer, George W. Rogers, Inc., had paid workers' compensation. The appellants, Ingram & Greene, Inc. (a subcontractor) and H. Sand & Co., Inc. (the general contractor), sought indemnification from the employer, George W. Rogers, Inc., for the plaintiff's injuries. The initial order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, had dismissed their cross-claims and denied H. Sand & Co., Inc.'s motion to amend its answer. The appellate court reversed this order, finding that federal maritime law allows for indemnification based on either an express agreement or an implied warranty of workmanlike performance, and that Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6) impose liabilities equivalent to the doctrine of unseaworthiness.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationCross-claimsLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActFederal Maritime LawState Court JurisdictionImplied Warranty of Workmanlike PerformanceLabor Law ViolationsStrict LiabilityThird-Party Beneficiary
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 269 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