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

Gomez v. F & T International LLC

This case involves two undocumented construction workers, Gomez and Livicura, who were injured in a demolition accident on February 4, 2005. The property owner, F & T Int’l (Flushing, New York) LLC, and the general contractor, Top 8 Construction Corp., moved to compel further depositions of the plaintiffs regarding their immigration status and income tax returns to mitigate lost wage claims. The court, citing Balbuena v IDR Realty LLC, denied the defendants' motion, ruling that a worker's alien status is irrelevant for lost wage claims when no false documents were used. The court emphasized that the onus of verifying work authorization lies with the employer, not the employee, and highlighted the disingenuousness of employers raising immigration status concerns only after an injury, deeming it an attempt to intimidate plaintiffs.

Construction AccidentUndocumented WorkersLost Wages ClaimImmigration StatusEmployer SanctionsIRCAWorkers' RightsDemolition IndustryPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
16
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gomez v. Pellicone

Plaintiff Isabel Gomez filed claims against individual defendants Robert W. Pellicone, John F. Sullivan, Stephen C. Lando, and the Eastchester Union Free School District, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Gomez claimed she faced retaliation and discrimination after refusing to alter a student's transcript and for her chronic tardiness. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment, finding individual defendants immune and plaintiff's claims against the District lacking sufficient admissible evidence. State law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1983First AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentEmployment LawPublic School
References
38
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06151
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2017

Berman-Rey v. Gomez

The plaintiff, Gerson Berman-Rey, was allegedly injured when a plywood fence at a construction site fell and hit him. He was employed as an assistant carpenter on a renovation project owned by the defendants, Sigifredo Gomez and Liliana Gomez. Berman-Rey commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claims of common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1). The Appellate Division modified the order, denying summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding triable issues of fact regarding the defendants' creation of or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, concluding that the falling fence was not an object being hoisted or requiring securing for the purpose of the undertaking.

Construction Site AccidentPlywood FenceSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law 200Labor Law 240(1)Dangerous Premises ConditionOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityFalling Object Case
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08017 [192 AD3d 91]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Sandoval v. Leake & Watts Servs., Inc.

Eduardo Sandoval, a nonverbal autistic resident, suffered burns from a heated potato masher at a residential facility operated by Leake and Watts Services, Inc. (L&W). His co-guardians sued L&W, its employees Asialone Edwards and Wendell Chavies, alleging battery, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. The Supreme Court denied L&W's and Edwards' motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified this decision, dismissing claims against L&W based on respondeat superior, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training claims, and for Edwards' individual claims. The court highlighted L&W's failure to adequately check employee references and that the potential for abuse was foreseeable based on L&W's own training materials.

Negligent hiringNegligent retentionNegligent supervisionNegligent trainingRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentAutismResidential facilityEmployee misconductPropensity to commit injury
References
15
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04706 [241 AD3d 791]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Gomez v. Tilden Estates, LLC

The plaintiff, Yeison Moncion Gomez, was injured while working on a construction project for Tilden Estates, LLC, and LG Construction Management, Inc., when he slipped on dust while carrying an air conditioning unit up a staircase. He initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claims and the dismissal of the comparative negligence defense, finding triable issues of fact, but affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSlipping HazardElevation-Related WorkSummary JudgmentComparative NegligenceIndustrial CodeStaircase FallAir Conditioning UnitAppellate Review
References
29
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00435 [234 AD3d 945]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Gomez-Jimenez v. Wilson

Fausto Gomez-Jimenez, injured in Brooklyn while driving for his employer DRV Xpress, LLC, received New Jersey workers' compensation benefits. His vehicle was struck by Nyaisha Wilson. Wilson's insurer tendered its $25,000 policy limit, leading DRV's insurer, BerkleyNet Insurance Company, to place a subrogation lien on the settlement for the workers' compensation costs. The plaintiffs moved to vacate this lien, but the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, ruling that New Jersey law governs the reimbursement rights for benefits paid in New Jersey, thereby upholding BerkleyNet's subrogation lien.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSubrogation LienNew Jersey LawAppellate ReviewThird-Party ClaimInsurance ReimbursementPolicy LimitsEmployer's Rights
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03810 [195 AD3d 502]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2021

Gomez v. Trinity Ctr. LLC

Plaintiff Jose G. Gomez, a construction worker, was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim after falling 16 to 24 feet when the corrugated metal flooring of a sidewalk bridge bent downward. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries. The defendant, Trinity Centre LLC, failed to raise an issue of fact as to its contention that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident, as its expert opinion was vague and did not reference evidence in the record regarding the practicality or safety of a tie-off point for the plaintiff's harness.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgmentProximate causeSidewalk bridgeWorker safetyAppellate decisionNegligencePersonal injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 20,516 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