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. 2020 NY Slip Op 02509 [182 AD3d 944]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Women's Project & Prods., Inc. (Commissioner of Labor)

The Women's Project and Productions, Inc. (WPP), a non-profit theater company, appealed two decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board found WPP liable for additional tax contributions on remuneration paid to certain individuals, including artistic advisors and directors, whom WPP had treated as independent contractors. The Department of Labor, however, considered these individuals employees. The Board modified an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that WPP failed to rebut the statutory presumption of employment under Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that WPP's arguments were unpersuasive and that the Board rationally concluded WPP failed to rebut the statutory presumption of employment. Consequently, the additional tax contributions imposed upon WPP were upheld.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPerforming ArtsStatutory PresumptionLabor LawTax ContributionsAppeal BoardRebuttalArtistic Services
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regensdorfer v. Central Buffalo Project Corp.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Central Buffalo Project Corporation and third-party defendant United States Shoe Corporation, doing business as Casual Corner, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. An out-of-possession landlord, Central Buffalo, was not liable as it relinquished control, was not contractually obligated to repair nonstructural defects, and did not have notice of the condition. The loose stairway treads were deemed a non-structural defect. Additionally, Casual Corner was contractually obligated to indemnify Central Buffalo. The amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, effective September 10, 1996, was deemed prospective only and not applicable to this action.

Landlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawStructural DefectNotice of DefectAppellate ReviewOut-of-Possession LandlordLease Agreement
References
15
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01738 [192 AD3d 953]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2021

Andres v. North 10 Project, LLC

The plaintiff, Mieczyslaw Andres, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries he sustained when an electrical panel box he was removing fell and struck him. He appealed from an order denying his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants North 10 Project, LLC, and HSD Construction, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the electrical panel box was an object requiring securing under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionFalling Object DoctrineAppellate DivisionLiabilityConstruction Site SafetyStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01663 [192 AD3d 1594]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2021

Chrisman v. Syracuse Soma Project, LLC

Michael Chrisman, an employee of EJ Construction Group, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping on snowy metal decking at a construction site. He sued Syracuse SOMA Project, LLC (owner) and Burke Contracting, LLC (general contractor) under Labor Law. Burke initiated a third-party action against Whitacre Engineering Co. (subcontractor for steel mesh) and EJ Construction Group, Inc. (subcontractor employing Chrisman) for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted third-party defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) liability. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the order, ruling that the violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) does not conclusively establish liability but is merely evidence of negligence, thus raising factual issues. The court also found no contractual indemnification between Burke and Whitacre due to the lack of a formal contract but erred in dismissing the contractual indemnification claim against EJ Construction Group, Inc. The order was modified by reinstating the fifth cause of action against EJ and denying plaintiff's cross motion entirely, and as modified, affirmed.

Construction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewNegligenceThird-Party Action
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicalo v. New York City Housing & Development Administration

Plaintiffs, sponsors of the Harbour Village limited-profit cooperative housing project in Brooklyn, sought a declaratory judgment and mandatory injunction to compel New York City defendants to take actions, including issuing a condemnation certificate, to facilitate the project. The project, approved by the Board of Estimate in 1971, stalled due to the Mayor's failure to issue the certificate, which was deemed a discretionary act. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Mayor's action was discretionary, not ministerial, and therefore could not be compelled by the court. The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as no enforceable contract existed given the Mayor's unexercised discretion and the court's lack of power to compel legislative or executive action.

Declaratory JudgmentMandatory InjunctionSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentDiscretionary ActMinisterial ActCondemnation ProceedingsPrivate Housing Finance LawNew York City CharterAdministrative Code
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Penn Traffic Co.

The Penn Traffic Company, a Chapter 11 debtor, sought to reject a Project Agreement with COR Route 5 Company, LLC, under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The agreement involved a land exchange, supermarket construction, and a lease-back. COR had completed all its obligations, including tendering a $3.5 million reimbursement and the signed lease, but Penn Traffic refused to accept. The court denied the motion, ruling that the Project Agreement was not an executory contract when the motion was filed, as COR had substantially performed its duties. The court emphasized that Penn Traffic's refusal to accept performance, invoking the Doctrine of Prevention of Performance, could not justify rejecting the contract as executory.

Bankruptcy LawExecutory ContractsSection 365(a)Contract RejectionSubstantial PerformancePrevention of Performance DoctrineDebtor-in-PossessionChapter 11Commercial Real EstateLand Swap
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurovskaya v. Project O.H.R., Inc.

The plaintiffs, Natalia Kurovskaya and Ruslan Domnic, sued Project O.H.R., Inc. in New York State Supreme Court for alleged violations of New York Labor Law, including unpaid wages and overtime. Project O.H.R. removed the case to the Southern District of New York under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction, specifically the local controversy and home state exceptions, applied. The court agreed, inferring that two-thirds or more of the plaintiff class members and the primary defendant were citizens of New York State. Additionally, the court found the discretionary 'interests of justice' exception applicable, concluding that the case involved New York state law and parties. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion, remanding the action to the New York State Supreme Court.

Class Action Fairness ActCAFA ExceptionsRemandFederal JurisdictionState CourtNew York Labor LawMinimum WageOvertimeHome State ExceptionLocal Controversy Exception
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1992

McNair v. Morris Avenue Associates

This case concerns appeals by Morris Avenue Associates, the property owner, and Stony Brook Projects, Inc., the general contractor, from an order denying their cross-motions for summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Metal Manufacturing Co., the subcontractor. The plaintiff, Randall McNair, an employee of Metal, was injured in a construction accident and had previously been awarded summary judgment against Morris Avenue and Stony Brook for a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation. The appellate court determined that Morris Avenue and Stony Brook, being only vicariously liable, were entitled to full common-law indemnification from Metal Manufacturing Co., whose negligence was the sole cause of the worker's injuries. Consequently, the original order was modified to grant the cross-motions for summary judgment for indemnification to Morris Avenue Associates and Stony Brook Projects, Inc., against Metal Manufacturing Co., and as so modified, the order was affirmed.

Personal InjuryCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentLabor LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractorVicarious LiabilityConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionSuffolk County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anduaga v. AHRC NYC New Projects, Inc.

The plaintiff was injured in a workplace accident and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court determined that the defendant is an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, NYSARC, Inc., thereby limiting the plaintiff to their workers' compensation remedy. The Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineEmployer LiabilityExclusivity Provisions
References
4
Case No. 536034 CV-22-2074
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Newman v. Project Renewal, Inc.

The claimant, Hillary Newman, appealed two decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning her established workers' compensation claim. Newman sustained injuries in May 2016 and subsequently had an intervening accident in September 2017. While she disclosed the intervening accident to her treating physician, this information was not available to an independent medical examiner (IME) when she completed a questionnaire on April 27, 2018, denying any subsequent injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board found Newman violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a for knowingly making a false statement and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the finding of a § 114-a violation, supported by substantial evidence. However, the court modified the duration of the mandatory penalty, ruling it should extend only until June 11, 2018, when the medical report detailing the intervening accident was filed and available to the carrier, rather than until April 9, 2021. The appeal from the earlier Board decision was dismissed as moot.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationIndependent Medical ExaminationMandatory PenaltyAppellate ReviewCredibility IssueMaterial FactIntervening AccidentMedical Report Disclosure
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 612 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