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

Dick v. John M. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Alan F. Dick was injured when a temporary deck collapsed at a construction site in July 1984 while he was working for John M. Gates Construction Corporation, the general contractor. He and his wife sued Gates Construction, Harvest Homes (materials manufacturer), and Armand Córtese (property owner) for damages. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Gates Construction but granted summary judgment to Harvest Homes and Córtese. Gates Construction appealed the denial of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, holding that Gates Construction, as the general contractor, had a nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) to provide proper protection and that issues of fact regarding inadequate bracing precluded summary judgment in its favor.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Deck CollapseSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorNondelegable DutyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyConstruction Site Accident
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00099 [146 AD3d 466]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Erkan v. McDonald's Corp.

Plaintiff Huseyin Erkan was injured when he fell from an unsecured ladder while installing tiles for a McDonald's restaurant, subsequently filing a lawsuit against McDonald's Corporation and Custom Commercial Construction Corp. alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, citing prematurity. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision, granting the plaintiff's motion. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the defendants failed to present admissible evidence to create a material issue of fact. It emphasized that unverified documents and unsworn statements were insufficient to oppose summary judgment, affirming that the owner or contractor's failure to provide proper protection leads to absolute liability unless the worker's actions were the sole proximate cause.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityUnsecured LadderConstruction AccidentPremature MotionEvidentiary ProofUnverified RecordsSole Proximate CauseAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1938

Sea Gate Ass'n v. Sea Gate Tenants Ass'n

The Sea Gate Association, a private membership corporation in New York, sought a temporary injunction to prevent tenants from picketing within its private community. The association argued its right to enact and enforce rules against picketing to maintain the private residential character of Sea Gate and protect property values. The defendants, who were tenants protesting an increase in beach charges, contended that their picketing was lawful and that the streets within Sea Gate should be considered public, thus asserting violations of their constitutional rights. The court, however, emphasized the distinction between public and private rights, reaffirming the association's established authority to impose reasonable restrictions on its private property. Given that no labor dispute was involved and based on prior rulings confirming Sea Gate's private status, the court concluded that the rule against picketing was reasonable and had been breached. Consequently, the temporary injunction was granted against the defendants.

Private Property RightsTemporary InjunctionPicketing RegulationConstitutional RightsPrivate CommunityMembership CorporationProperty RegulationsTenant DisputeNew York LawBeach Access Fees
References
11
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06183 [120 AD3d 1315]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2014

McDonald v. Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.

The plaintiff, Andrew McDonald, appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendant Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, holding that the defendant established a prima facie defense under the Workers' Compensation Law. The court found that the defendant and the plaintiff's employer, Winter Bros. Waste Systems, Inc., operate as a single integrated entity, thereby extending workers' compensation protection to the defendant as an alter ego of the employer. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to this defense, leading to the proper dismissal of the complaint.

Alter Ego DoctrineWorkers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityIntegrated EntityAppellate DivisionSuffolk CountyTriable Issue of FactRespondent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1998

Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Ass'n v. City of Geneva

In 1996, the City of Geneva altered health benefits for its retirees to an inferior plan, despite a 1972 resolution promising benefits and 24 years of consistent provision. The Aeneas McDonald Police Benevolent Association, Inc. challenged this unilateral reduction via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing that past practice established an an enforceable contractual right. Supreme Court initially granted relief, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that no vested contractual right existed for retirees and health benefits were a nonmandatory subject of negotiation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that a public employer's statutory duty to bargain does not extend to retirees, and past practice, independent of an express agreement, cannot create an enforceable contractual right in civil litigation.

Health BenefitsRetiree BenefitsPast PracticeCollective BargainingPublic EmploymentTaylor LawContractual RightsMunicipal EmployeesUnilateral AlterationAssociational Standing
References
19
Case No. 651884/2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2017

1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC v. McDonald's Corp.

The case concerns a dispute between 1552 Broadway Retail Owner LLC (Landlord) and McDonald's Corporation (Tenant) regarding the fair market value (FMV) rent under a commercial lease. The core issue involved the interpretation of the "highest and best use of the demised premises" clause, which was initially ruled upon by the court in Landlord's favor before arbitration. Subsequently, Tenant allegedly committed misconduct during arbitration by relitigating this court-decided issue and submitting an expert opinion discrediting the court's ruling. Landlord moved to vacate the arbitration award, citing Tenant's misconduct. The court denied Landlord's motion and granted Tenant's cross-motion to confirm the award, determining that Landlord failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged misconduct prejudiced the arbitrators' decision.

ArbitrationLease DisputeFair Market ValueHighest and Best UseMisconductVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardJudicial ReviewCPLR 7511Contract Interpretation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. McDonald

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.

Plaintiff Paul F. McDonald sued Piedmont Aviation, Inc. alleging a violation of Section 43 of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (49 U.S.C. § 1552). McDonald claimed Piedmont failed to grant him preferential hiring as a dislocated protected employee, a pilot from Air New England, when Piedmont hired other pilots in 1981 and refused McDonald employment in 1982. Piedmont moved to dismiss the action, arguing Section 43 does not create a private right of action and that McDonald's rights had not ripened due to a lack of Department of Labor regulations. The court denied both motions, finding that Section 43 implies a private right of action and that the absence of regulations does not negate the statutory rights. The court also denied Piedmont's motion to stay the action pending an unrelated case in the District of Columbia, citing differing issues and potential prejudice to the plaintiff.

Airline Deregulation ActEmployee Protection PlanPrivate Right of ActionHiring PreferenceStatutory InterpretationDepartment of Labor RegulationsMotion to DismissMotion to StayFederal JurisdictionAirline Industry
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2000

American Home Assurance v. McDonald

This case involves a dispute between American Home Assurance Company and its insured social workers, Rory McDonald and Helene Anisfeld, regarding professional liability policies. The core issue is the validity and applicability of a $25,000 "sexual misconduct" limitation clause after McDonald was accused of sexual misconduct with a patient, Randy K., who also sued Anisfeld for vicarious and independent negligence. The Supreme Court initially deemed the limitation against New York public policy for non-sexual misconduct claims. However, the appellate court modified this, affirming that the sexual misconduct provision is valid under New York public policy and limits American Home's indemnity duty to McDonald to $25,000 for all claims. Crucially, the appellate court also ruled that the sexual misconduct limitation did not apply to Anisfeld, as Randy K. was exclusively McDonald's patient, ensuring Anisfeld full coverage for Randy K.'s negligence claims against her.

Insurance LawProfessional LiabilitySexual Misconduct ClausePolicy InterpretationPublic Policy ArgumentVicarious LiabilityDuty to IndemnifyDuty to DefendSocial Work MalpracticeInsurance Coverage
References
9
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
Showing 1-10 of 141 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