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. ADJ1797870
Regular
May 23, 2019

GEORGE DIAZ vs. REYES MASONRY CONTRACTORS, INC., CITATION INSURANCE COMPANY, GENERAL REINSURANCE, INTERCARE, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied George Diaz's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award of 93.75% permanent disability. The judge apportioned 30% of Diaz's orthopedic disability to prior injuries, relying on medical evidence of degenerative changes aggravated by the 1992 industrial injury. Diaz's arguments for 100% permanent disability due to total disability or loss of use of both hands were rejected due to insufficient medical evidence. The Board found the apportionment was supported by substantial medical evidence and did not qualify for an unapportioned award under the *Hikida* precedent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGeorge DiazReyes Masonry ContractorsInc.Citation Insurance CompanyGeneral ReinsuranceIntercareSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF)permanent total disabilityapportionment
References
6
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 02541
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Diaz v. Raveh Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Nimer Diaz, a carpenter, was injured at a construction site owned by defendant Raveh Realty, LLC, when a heavy plywood form fell and struck him. Diaz moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, which was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Diaz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found that the type of work being performed involved a load that required securing and that the plaintiff's injury was the foreseeable consequence of performing the task without any safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute.

Labor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Construction AccidentFalling ObjectPlywood FormSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkplace SafetyStatutory ViolationForeseeable Risk
References
1
Case No. KA 11-00996
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2012

DIAZ, CARLOS, PEOPLE v

This case involves an appeal concerning the classification of Carlos Diaz under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Monroe County Court initially determined him to be a level three risk, despite the risk assessment instrument (RAI) indicating a level two risk. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended an upward departure based on his offense pattern and schizophrenia diagnosis. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, found the County Court's upward departure to be an error, stating that the factors relied upon were either already accounted for by the RAI or lacked sufficient admissible evidence. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the order, classifying Diaz as a level two risk, with Justice Fahey dissenting.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Assessment InstrumentUpward DepartureLevel Two RiskLevel Three RiskSchizophrenia DiagnosisMental IllnessAppellate ReviewForcible CompulsionSexual Offenses
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Rosbrock Associates Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Eduardo Londono Diaz, an employee of New Rochelle Hotel Association (NRHA), sustained injuries while working at the Ramada Plaza Hotel. He commenced an action against Rosbrock Associated Limited Partnership (Rosbrock), the landowner, alleging violations of the Labor Law. Rosbrock, which leased the land to NRHA, moved for summary judgment, arguing that NRHA and Rosbrock were effectively the same entity for Workers' Compensation Law purposes due to identical general and limited partners, thus precluding a lawsuit against the landowner under exclusive remedy provisions. The court granted Rosbrock's motion for summary judgment, finding that despite being separately maintained for tax and legal compliance, the identical partnership makeup rendered them a single entity for workers' compensation, thereby dismissing Diaz's action.

Limited Partnership LiabilityExclusive Remedy DoctrineIdentity of EntitiesLandowner Employer StatusSummary Judgment GrantLabor Law ViolationsPartnership LawStatutory DutyWorkplace Injury ClaimBoiler Maintenance
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02597 [193 AD3d 640]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Diaz v. HHC TS Reit LLC

Plaintiff Rafael Diaz, a concrete worker, sustained injuries when unsecured metal conduit pipes toppled onto his head and shoulders. The incident occurred while Diaz was attempting to remove a plywood form from a space between a scaffold and a building column. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court, Bronx County's order, which had granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found unrebutted evidence that the metal pipes were not adequately secured for the purpose of the undertaking, thereby violating Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the Appellate Division dismissed defendants' appeal as abandoned and noted that issues of fact regarding the ownership of the pipes precluded summary dismissal of the third-party complaint seeking contribution and common-law and contractual indemnification.

concrete worker injuryfalling object hazardscaffold safetyLabor Law 240(1)summary judgmentworkplace accidentindemnification claimcontribution claimunsecured equipmentappellate review
References
3
Case No. ADJ3252798 (ANA 0407298)
Regular
Nov 02, 2011

CATALINO DIAZ (Deceased), RUBERTA DIAZ (Widow), MARGARET NATASHA DIAZ vs. PEOPLE'S CARE INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns Ruberta Diaz's claim for death benefits as the widow of Catalino Diaz, who sustained a fatal industrial injury. The initial decision awarded benefits to their minor child but denied Ruberta’s claim, finding she failed to prove dependency. Ruberta contends she is a total dependent and that the judge erred in not addressing this, or alternatively, in finding no partial dependency. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, deferred the issue of Ruberta's dependency, and returned the case to the trial level for further evidence and decision, while affirming the award to the minor child.

DependencyDeath BenefitWidow's ClaimMinor ChildPartial DependencyTotal DependencyPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJEvidence
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06578
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2023

Schoonover v. Diaz

Plaintiff, a laborer, was injured during construction at a hotel when struck by a vehicle operated by a hotel employee. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence, moving for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing and denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) liability due to unresolved questions of fact regarding proximate cause. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing remaining questions of fact concerning defendants' supervisory control or knowledge of dangerous conditions.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentProximate CauseAppellate ReviewIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.29Worksite SafetyParking Lot Accident
References
25
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
Showing 1-10 of 343 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