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

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06738 [210 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Aguilera v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

Plaintiff, Anneldy Aguilera, was injured after slipping on an unidentified wet substance in the women's restroom at a BJ's Wholesale Club store. The defendant, BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. A maintenance worker's testimony of regular, twice-hourly inspections and cleaning of the bathroom was presented as prima facie evidence. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that a timeframe of four to thirty minutes was insufficient to establish constructive notice.

Premises liabilitySlip and fallSummary judgmentConstructive noticeActual noticeMaintenanceBathroom accidentAppellate affirmanceWet substanceHazardous condition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Severino v. Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc.

Peter Severino, an injured worker, and his wife, Patricia Severino, filed suit after Peter sustained injuries at a construction site in Colonie, Albany County. The site was owned by Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc. and Schuyler Meadows Country Club, Inc., with Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc. (BBLD) as the general contractor. Peter was injured when a ladder he was using shifted and an angle iron fell, striking him. The complaint alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict against Schuyler and BBLD for violating Labor Law § 240(1), dismissed claims against Schenectady Steel Company, Inc., and denied BBLD's motion against Brownell Steel, Inc. The jury found BBLD 20% liable and Brownell 80% liable. The judgment and order were affirmed on appeal.

Construction Site AccidentLadder FallFalling ObjectLabor Law ViolationsDirected VerdictIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC

This order addresses a request from certain plaintiffs to vacate a prior decision in Litle v. Arab Bank (2007) that dismissed their claims based on timeliness. The plaintiffs' request is grounded in recent amendments to the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) (18 U.S.C. § 2331 et seq.), enacted in January 2013, which extended the statute of limitations to ten years and explicitly apply retroactively to pending civil actions. The defendant, Arab Bank, opposed the application, arguing against retroactive application on Due Process grounds, citing William Danzer & Co. v. Gulf & Ship Island R. Co. However, the court rejected this argument, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Landgraf v. USI Film Products and International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., which affirmed Congress's constitutional authority to provide for retroactive application of extended limitations periods. Consequently, the court vacated the Litle Opinion to the extent it dismissed certain plaintiffs' claims as time-barred, including those of Shivi Keller, Chayim Brovender, and Mattityahu Zachariash, and restored these claims for further proceedings.

Anti-Terrorism ActStatute of LimitationsRetroactive ApplicationDue ProcessFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEastern District of New YorkCivil ActionVacated DecisionClaim RestorationAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dozier

The case People v. Dozier addresses whether incarceration under a subsequently vacated conviction can be used to toll the 10-year limitation for enhanced sentencing of second violent felony offenders under Penal Law § 70.04 (1) (b) (v). Defendant Robert Dozier's 1980 rape and sodomy conviction was vacated due to newly discovered evidence regarding the complainant's psychiatric history, leading to the indictment's dismissal. The People argued that "incarcerated for any reason" should be interpreted literally, applying even to invalid convictions unless deemed unconstitutional. The Court, affirming the Appellate Division, rejected this strict interpretation. It held that the tolling provision does not apply when incarceration results from a "without reason" or flawed conviction that is ultimately dismissed, compelling Dozier's resentencing as a first felony offender.

Second violent felony offenderEnhanced sentencingPenal LawTolling periodIncarcerationVacated convictionNewly discovered evidenceCPL 440.10Statutory interpretationCriminal law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04775
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Smith v. Girls Club of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of plaintiff Mark A. Smith's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Girls Club of New York. Smith was injured while voluntarily participating in a community service program. The court found that Smith failed to establish he was an "employee" entitled to the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1), a prerequisite for his claim. His reliance on the Workers' Compensation Law was deemed unavailing, and new evidence submitted did not alter the determination. The court concluded that Smith was not employed by an agent of the defendant.

Labor Law § 240(1)Community Service ProgramEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewVoluntary ParticipationPersonal InjuryScope of EmploymentJudiciary Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubeis v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Aldo Rubeis was injured after falling from a ladder while installing a steel cupola, sustaining a brain injury. He sued Aqua Club, Inc., who then impleaded Rubeis's employer, Venezia Iron Works, Inc., alleging a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court denied Venezia Iron Works' motion to dismiss, and a jury found Rubeis sustained a grave injury. Venezia Iron Works appealed. The Appellate Division reviewed the definition of "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically "permanent total disability" in the context of brain injury cases. The Court concluded that Rubeis's injuries, despite their severity, did not meet the "narrowly defined" standard for grave injury based on prior precedents, which focus on day-to-day functions rather than just employability. Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, granted Venezia Iron Works' motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Permanent Total Disability DefinitionBrain Injury SeverityCommon Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimThird-Party Action DismissalAppellate Review StandardsStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability Exemption
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05840
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2022

Exley v. Cassell Vacation Homes, Inc.

The plaintiff, Bruce Exley, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from a defective ladder while attempting to repair a leak on a roof owned by the defendant, Cassell Vacation Homes, Inc. Exley, who lived rent-free on the property in exchange for maintenance, brought an action against the defendant, citing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that the ladder was defective and improperly secured, constituting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and a proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentElevated Work SiteSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Proximate CauseSafety DevicesDefective LadderAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 20,927 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