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

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. ADJ3732643 (OXN 0133370)
Regular
Aug 12, 2011

JAIME GONZALEZ vs. HAMLIN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

This case concerns Granite State Insurance Company (AIG) seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their workers' compensation policy with Hamlin Development Corporation valid and in force at the time of applicant Jaime Gonzalez's injury. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the arbitrator's finding that AIG failed to properly and timely cancel the policy. AIG's cancellation notice was deemed defective because it lacked statutory grounds, did not explain how to cure the alleged deficiency, and did not notify the insured's intermediaries. Therefore, AIG remains obligated to defend Hamlin and provide benefits to Gonzalez.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGranite State Insurance CompanyHamlin Development CorporationJaime GonzalezInsurance Code section 676.8Notice of CancellationPremium Finance AgreementInsurexConcord InsuranceCananwill
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Striegel v. Hillcrest Heights Development Corp.

Plaintiff Robert Striegel sought partial summary judgment against Hillcrest Heights Development Corporation under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) for injuries sustained from a fall while working on a sloped roof. Striegel, an employee of Sahlem's Roofing and Siding, slipped on a frost-covered sub-roof, fell, and slid down the roof, alleging that Hillcrest, as owner and general contractor, failed to provide safety devices. Defendants argued that the injury was from lifting or that the fall was onto the roof surface, not from an elevated height, citing White v Sperry Supply & Warehouse. The court distinguished White, finding that the sloped roof in this case made the fall directly related to gravity, thus falling within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the court granted Striegel partial summary judgment on liability and also granted Hillcrest a conditional judgment for common-law indemnification against Sahlem’s, finding no active negligence on Hillcrest's part.

Construction AccidentSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationLabor LawElevated Work SiteGravity-Related HazardRoofingFall ProtectionPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Thirteenth Street Community Ass'n v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Petitioners, comprising local condominium boards, tenants, and residents, challenged the New York State Urban Development Corporation's (UDC) determination to acquire a lot for a homeless housing facility. They argued that UDC exceeded its statutory jurisdiction, its findings were defective, the project's funding was illegal, and its use of override powers was improper. The court affirmed UDC's determination, concluding that its actions were within its statutory authority, its findings were well-supported by the record, and the funding and override powers were appropriately exercised. Additionally, the court reviewed and upheld the Housing Finance Agency's (HFA) negative environmental declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court also dismissed claims of unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, referencing established precedents.

CondemnationEminent DomainUrban DevelopmentHomeless HousingSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewStatutory JurisdictionOverride PowersPublic PurposeBlighted Areas
References
12
Case No. 34 SSM 30
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2020

Waldemar Biaca-Neto v. Boston Road II Housing Development Fund Corporation

Plaintiff Waldemar Biaca-Neto sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold while attempting to enter a building through a window cutout. Defendants, including Mountco Construction and Development Corp., sought summary judgment, arguing plaintiff's failure to use available safety devices was the sole proximate cause of his injuries under Labor Law § 240 (1). The New York Court of Appeals determined that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether plaintiff knew he was expected to use the safety devices, considering an alleged "accepted practice" of entering through window cut-outs. The Court modified the Appellate Division's order, denying defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) and related loss of consortium claims, and affirmed as modified. A dissenting opinion contended that plaintiff's own negligence, in choosing convenience over safety despite available devices, was the sole proximate cause.

Scaffolding accidentConstruction worker injuryLabor Law § 240(1)Sole proximate causeSummary judgment motionTriable issue of factWorker safety devicesLoss of consortiumAppellate reviewNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 1998

Nos v. Greenpoint Manufacturing & Design Center Local Development Corp.

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center Local Development Corporation, the owner and lessor of a property, appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification against S & G Woodworking, Inc. A worker employed by S & G was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder on Greenpoint's premises. The appellate court found no evidence that Greenpoint supervised or controlled the plaintiff's work, thus establishing its right to indemnification from S & G. The order was reversed, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and Greenpoint was deemed entitled to recover legal expenses incurred in defending the plaintiff's claims.

Personal InjuryCommon-law indemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker InjuryPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityLessor LiabilityThird-party actionLegal Expenses
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

This case involves consolidated appeals challenging the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation's (RIOC) approval of the Related/Hudson site plan for Southtown development. Petitioners, Alternative Southtown Design Committee and Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development, argued RIOC failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that the plan violated the General Development Plan (GDP). The Supreme Court's judgment, which had dismissed RIRSD's petition as untimely, was modified on appeal, finding the petition timely but denying it on the merits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Alternative's petition and the denial of RIRA's intervention, concluding that RIOC took the requisite "hard look" at environmental impacts and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court found petitioners lacked standing to challenge the GDP's breach as they were merely incidental beneficiaries.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactGeneral Development PlanRoosevelt IslandLand UseUrban DevelopmentSite PlanJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Maltais

The petitioner, an employee of Linden Hills Development Corporation, sustained injuries in a work-related accident on land owned by Classic Developers of Schodack. After obtaining an unsatisfied default judgment against Classic under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to Classic's bankruptcy, the petitioner initiated a CPLR 5227 special proceeding. The goal was to pursue Classic's contractual indemnification claims against James J. Maltais, Linden Hills, and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G). The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing the exclusivity provision of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the indemnification agreement was intended to shift liability between the original parties, not to allow the petitioner a direct action against the employer beyond workers' compensation benefits. Additionally, the court found Maltais relieved of his indemnification obligation due to an effective assignment of the contract.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityIndemnification AgreementCPLR 5227 EnforcementLabor Law § 240Statute of Frauds DefenseContract AssignmentDefault JudgmentThird-Party LiabilityEmployer ImmunityInsurance Policy Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cotazino v. Basil Development Corp.

Plaintiffs sued Basil Development Corporation and Peter Baltis for breach of contract/warranty and negligence after purchasing a home with numerous defects and water leaks. The jury awarded plaintiffs $20,000 for breach of contract/warranty and $17,000 for negligence, rejecting defendants' counterclaim. On appeal, the court found sufficient evidence for the contract claim but reduced the negligence award to $2,182.96, attributing only specific damages to negligence. Furthermore, the court reversed the imposition of personal liability on Peter Baltis, stating insufficient evidence to disregard the corporate entity of Basil Development Corporation. Finally, the court clarified the calculation of interest, affirming September 10, 1986, for the contract claim and establishing August 31, 1987, as the date for the negligence claim interest.

Breach of ContractBreach of WarrantyNegligenceCorporate VeilPersonal LiabilityDamagesInterest CalculationReal PropertyHome ConstructionDefective Workmanship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 4,799 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