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

Smith v. M.V. Woods Construction Co.

In this dissenting opinion, Judges Scudder and Kehoe argue that the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant M.V. Woods Construction Co., Inc.'s cross motion to set aside a jury verdict. The plaintiff, Charles C. Smith, was injured while lifting cement blocks onto an eight-foot-high scaffolding, and the jury found a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (f). The dissenting judges contend that the Industrial Code provision, concerning safe vertical passage, is inapplicable because the plaintiff's injury was not related to accessing working levels but to manual material handling. They conclude that any alleged violation was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's back injury, and the complaint against the defendant should have been dismissed.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(f)Scaffolding SafetyProximate CauseJury VerdictDissenting OpinionMaterial HandlingSafe Means of AccessAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Positive Productions

Jonathan Smith, known as Lil Jon, petitioned the District Court to vacate or modify an arbitration award in favor of Positive Productions, a Japanese concert promoter. The dispute arose from Smith's failure to perform three concerts in Japan as per initial and rescheduled agreements, leading to their cancellation. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution arbitrator, Mark Diamond, awarded Positive Productions $379,874.00 for lost profits, expenses, legal fees, and loss of reputation. Smith argued improper notice of arbitration, lack of arbitrator jurisdiction, and manifest disregard of New York law regarding damages. The District Court, presided by Judge Mukasey, denied Smith's petition and granted Positive Productions' cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that Smith received sufficient notice, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and the damage awards were justified under the law.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachLost ProfitsExpensesReputation DamagesAttorneys' FeesNoticeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
54
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2022

Wood v. Baker Bros. Excavating

Clifford Wood, a concrete laborer, sustained injuries after falling approximately three feet from a bridge footing at a work site. He initiated a lawsuit against Baker Brothers Excavating (KER), the general contractor, and Brinnier and Larios, P.C., an engineering firm, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Wood moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Supreme Court denied his motion, determining that while Wood met his initial burden, KER had raised triable issues of fact concerning the availability and usage of safety equipment and Wood's specific task at the time of the accident. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that factual disputes prevented summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against KER.

Construction accidentFall from heightLabor LawSummary judgmentTriable issues of factWorksite safetyAppellate DivisionGeneral contractorEngineering firmPlaintiff's motion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2005

Navarrete v. A & V Pasta Products, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff seeking damages for personal injuries sustained while operating a pasta-making machine. The defendant, A & V Pasta Products, Inc., moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was the plaintiff's employer and that the Workers' Compensation Law barred the action. The plaintiff countered, claiming employment by Greene County Importing Corporation. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion, citing a factual dispute over the employer's identity. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court determining, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was a 'special employee' of A & V Pasta Products, Inc., despite potential nominal employment by Greene County. Consequently, the plaintiff was precluded from suing A & V due to having received workers' compensation benefits.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSpecial Employee DoctrineEmployer LiabilityAppellate ProcedureIndustrial AccidentMachine SafetyCorporate StructureTort Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woods v. State University of New York

Norman Woods, an employee of SUNY and a member of a bargaining unit, was placed on probation in 2013 following an arbitration and subsequently terminated in 2014 due to a negative performance evaluation. Woods and his union sought to compel arbitration for the 2014 termination or to annul the termination. The Supreme Court initially erred by converting the proceeding to an application to confirm the 2013 arbitration award and remitting the matter for clarification, as the arbitrator's authority was limited to the issues presented at that time. The court also found that petitioners failed to provide sufficient proof of bad faith or improper motivation for Woods' termination, which was justified by poor work performance. The judgment is reversed, and the petition dismissed.

Arbitration DisputePublic Employee TerminationProbationary EmploymentBad Faith TerminationPerformance EvaluationCollective BargainingJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Court DecisionRemittal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Telephone Employees Organization, Local 1100, Communications Workers of America v. Woods

This case concerns a plaintiff union, Telephone Employees Organization, Local 1100, Communications Workers of America, attempting to convert a disciplinary financial sanction of $4,939.20 into a judgment against defendant John Woods. The sanction was imposed for Woods crossing a picket line during a strike, violating the union's constitution. Woods defended by claiming he was not a member of the union at the time. The court first determined it had jurisdiction over the nonmembership defense, rejecting the union's preemption argument. Subsequently, the court found that the plaintiff union failed to demonstrate Woods was formally admitted to membership in Local 1100 as required by its constitution and bylaws, lacking proof of an application or initiation fee payment. Consequently, as a nonmember, Woods was not bound by the union's rules prohibiting picket line crossing, rendering the fine unenforceable. The court dismissed the union's complaint and the defendant's counterclaim.

Union Disciplinary ActionPicket Line ViolationUnion Membership DisputeNLRA PreemptionState Court JurisdictionUnion ConstitutionContract EnforcementLabor LawUnion FinesResignation from Union
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amity Leather Products Co. v. RGA Accessories, Inc.

Amity Leather Products Co. moved to hold RGA Accessories, Inc. in civil contempt for violating a prior injunction that prohibited RGA from using Amity's product photographs for its own competing products. Amity alleged RGA used a photo of its 'Macro bag' to promote the 'Petite Valise' through their joint venture, Smithy Accessories. The court found clear and convincing evidence of the violation, noting identical markings on the products in photographs. It rejected RGA's defenses of diligence and shifting blame to its joint venture partner. The court granted Amity's motion, ordering RGA to account for and pay profits from sales to J.C. Penney, cease further use of the promotional material, and issue a disclaimer to all recipients.

Contempt of CourtInjunction ViolationLanham ActFalse AdvertisingJoint Venture LiabilityCivil ContemptUnjust EnrichmentCease and DesistDisclaimerPhotographic Evidence
References
7
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
Mar 23, 1995

Wood v. Irving

A Rochester police officer, temporarily assigned as a detective for over 18 months, was granted a permanent appointment to detective based on Civil Service Law § 58 (4) (c). The City of Rochester challenged this, arguing the law violated the New York Constitution's article V, § 6, which requires merit-based appointments by competitive examination where practicable. The Supreme Court granted the officer's petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that Civil Service Law § 58 (4) (c) is unconstitutional because it mandates a permanent appointment without a legislative determination of the impracticability of competitive testing, thus violating the constitutional merit and fitness requirement. The Court held that despite good intentions, the statute effectively allowed a preferential appointment, circumventing the competitive examination process applicable to others seeking the detective rank.

Civil Service LawConstitutional LawMerit and Fitness ClauseCompetitive ExaminationPolice PromotionDetective AppointmentLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewImpracticability of TestingArticle V Section 6
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 20,630 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