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. ADJ1857578
Regular
Jun 23, 2009

MIRNA LICEA vs. MINSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PHICO INSURANCE COMPANY in liquidation

This case involves a lien claim by Missirian Orthopedic Medical Group, assigned to KM Financial Services, for medical treatment provided to Mirna Licea. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), representing the insolvent insurer Phico Insurance Company, denied the lien based on Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), which excludes claims by assignees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the statute clearly prohibits payment to assignees, including medical providers who have assigned their accounts receivable. The Board relied on *Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. CIGA* for the principle that assigned claims are not "covered claims" under the Guarantee Act.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAPhico Insurance Companyliquidationinsolvent insurerlien claimantassigneecovered claimInsurance Code 1063.1(c)(9)
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00959 [147 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Gonsalves v. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Gonsalves and Shahazad M. Rasheed, sustained personal injuries at a construction site managed by Geiger Construction Company, Inc. and owned by 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. when a parapet wall collapsed during the lowering of a power washer. They sued 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. and Perimeter Bridge & Scaffold Co. for Labor Law violations. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. then initiated third-party actions against Geiger Construction for contribution and common-law indemnification. After a jury found Geiger Construction negligent, the Supreme Court denied Geiger Construction's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these judgments, concluding that there was no rational basis for the jury to find Geiger Construction negligent, as 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against them. Consequently, the third-party causes of action against Geiger Construction were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawNegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of LawJury Verdict
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sage Realty Corp. v. ISS Cleaning Services Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of the owners of six commercial buildings and their managing agent, Sage Realty Corporation, brought an antitrust claim against the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, Inc. (RAB) and ISS Cleaning Services Group, Inc. (ISS). The plaintiffs alleged that during a 1996 office building maintenance employee strike in New York City, the defendants engaged in a group boycott. This boycott purportedly blocked union members from returning to work for certain cleaning service contractors, thereby preventing plaintiffs from employing those union members. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable antitrust injury and that the non-statutory labor exemption barred the claim. The court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate antitrust injury and that the defendants' conduct was protected by the non-statutory labor exemption.

Antitrust LawGroup BoycottLabor ExemptionCollective BargainingLabor StrikeCleaning Service IndustryCommercial Real Estate MarketMotion to DismissSherman ActNon-Statutory Labor Exemption
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stachura v. 615-51 Street Realty Corp.

The defendants third-party plaintiffs, 615-51 Street Realty Corp. and New Deal Realty Corp., appealed an order denying summary judgment to New Deal Realty Corp. on a contractual indemnification claim and granting dismissal of that claim to the third-party defendant, J&L Landscaping Inc. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of 615-51 Street Realty Corp. The court reversed the order pertaining to New Deal Realty Corp., finding that the 'hold harmless' agreement between New Deal and J&L was a valid and binding contract supported by consideration and not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. New Deal Realty Corp. successfully demonstrated its freedom from negligence, and J&L Landscaping Inc. failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded in favor of New Deal Realty Corp. on its contractual indemnification claim against J&L Landscaping Inc.

Construction AccidentContractual IndemnificationHold Harmless AgreementSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury DamagesNegligence
References
11
Case No. 709355/19
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2026

Gibbs v. New Ram Realty, LLC

Cecil Gibbs sued New Ram Realty, LLC, and KCM Realty Company, L.P., for personal injuries after slipping on a water puddle in a hotel room. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were an out-of-possession landlord and lacked notice of the hazardous condition. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that KCM Realty was an out-of-possession landlord with no duty to repair, and New Ram Realty, LLC, did not create the condition or have constructive notice of the leak. The motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them was granted.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilityOut-of-Possession LandlordSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticePersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionHotel LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityLack of Notice
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05950
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2021

Dojce v. 1302 Realty Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Petrika Dojce, was injured by a power saw while working for an employer hired by 1302 Realty Company, LLC's tenant. Dojce sued 1302 Realty, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), including negligent supervision, retention, and hiring, and injuries such as psychosis. The Supreme Court of Kings County denied 1302 Realty's motion to strike negligent supervision claims, granted Dojce's cross-motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and granted Dojce's motion to strike certain deposition testimony. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order by granting 1302 Realty's motion to strike the negligent supervision, retention, and hiring claims due to lack of evidence. The Appellate Division also denied Dojce's cross-motion for summary judgment as untimely, as it was filed months after the deadline and raised different issues. The Appellate Division affirmed the striking of Francesco Pedulla's deposition testimony as an appropriate remedy for improperly obtained evidence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentNegligent SupervisionNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionDeposition TestimonyUntimely MotionIndustrial CodeWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08000 [189 AD3d 681]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Matias v. West 16th Realty LLC

Jose Matias, an employee of a linen company, sustained injuries on premises owned by West 16th Realty LLC and leased to Grey Dog Chelsea Inc. He was struck on the head by a cellar door while climbing stairs from the restaurant's cellar. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to defendant West 16th Realty LLC. The court determined that as an out-of-possession landlord, West 16th Realty LLC was not liable, as the lease did not mandate cellar door maintenance or repair, and no significant structural or design defect violating a specific statutory safety provision was present. The court also held that West 16th owed no duty under the Administrative Code of the City of New York regarding the sidewalk.

Out-of-possession landlordPremises liabilitySummary judgmentCellar door accidentStructural defectStatutory safety provisionLease obligationsAdministrative Code liabilityAppellate DivisionFirst Department
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03509 [206 AD3d 645]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2022

Mauro v. Zorn Realties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Angelo Mauro, sought damages for personal injuries sustained after falling through a hole at a warehouse owned by defendant Zorn Realties, Inc. Although Mauro received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Zorn Poultry Farms, Inc., he initiated this action against Zorn Realties, Inc. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the suit, claiming it was either an alter ego or a special employer of Mauro's employer. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially granted the defendant's motion. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, ruling that Zorn Realties, Inc. failed to provide prima facie evidence demonstrating it was an alter ego by controlling the day-to-day operations of Zorn Poultry Farms, Inc., or that Mauro was its special employee, lacking evidence of control over Mauro's work or his consent to such a relationship.

Alter Ego DoctrineSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityPersonal Injury ClaimPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCorporate ControlDay-to-Day Operations
References
12
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07864
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2016

Perez v. Gateway Realty LLC

Plaintiff Rafael Perez, a superintendent, suffered neck and back injuries while moving a heavy elevator motor at a building owned by Gateway Realty LLC. The injury occurred when a dolly wheel became stuck in a sidewalk crack, requiring Perez to lift the dolly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Gateway Realty LLC, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law due to an established employee/employer relationship between Perez and Gateway Realty LLC, and Perez's receipt of workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionEmployer-Employee RelationshipProperty Owner LiabilityPersonal InjurySidewalk DefectLabor LawAffirmed DecisionSuperintendent
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,575 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