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

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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 2016-02762 (Index No. 7314/09)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2018

Rapalo v. MJRB Kings Highway Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Luis Gerardo Rapalo, a construction worker, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when a scaffold plank broke, causing him to fall approximately 30 feet at a building owned by MJRB Kings Highway Realty, LLC. He alleged a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, reversed the lower court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for a Labor Law § 240(1) violation, and the defendant failed to present a triable issue of fact concerning the sole proximate cause or comparative negligence.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryProximate CauseComparative NegligenceSafety DevicesPremises Liability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 1979

Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation

Plaintiff Fiat Motors of North America, Inc. sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from holding a hearing concerning alleged defects in Fiat vehicles and a repurchase campaign. Fiat contended it was deprived of adequate notice, an opportunity to present its views, and a hearing before an impartial tribunal. The court, presided over by District Judge Metzner, applied the exhaustion of remedies doctrine, emphasizing that judicial intervention is typically warranted only after a final agency determination. The court denied Fiat's motion, finding that Fiat received reasonable notice, its constitutional claims could be addressed at the hearing and were subject to de novo review, and there was insufficient evidence of agency bias. Consequently, the court ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled on September 28, 1979.

Preliminary InjunctionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue ProcessAdequate NoticeImpartial TribunalNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationVehicle SafetyProduct Recall
References
9
Case No. ADJ9883212
Regular
May 19, 2018

LADONNA PALEGA vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a California Highway Patrol officer diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. The defendant, California Highway Patrol, sought reconsideration of a finding that this condition constituted an industrial injury under Labor Code section 3212.1. The defendant argued that the applicant's condition was not considered "cancer" and therefore the statutory presumption of industrial causation did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding based on qualified medical evaluator Dr. Ngo's opinion that adenocarcinoma in situ qualifies as cancer under the statute. The Board found the defendant failed to rebut the presumption by providing evidence that the exposure to carcinogens was not linked to the disabling cancer.

Labor Code section 3212.1presumption of injurycervical canceradenocarcinoma in situLoop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (LEEP)substantial medical evidencepanel qualified medical evaluatordisputable presumptionrebuttal evidencecarcinogen exposure
References
1
Case No. ADJ1253728 SFO 0509604
Regular
Dec 04, 2012

KENNETH BUMGARNER vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration in *Bumgarner v. California Highway Patrol*. The Board affirmed the original decision but amended Finding of Fact No. 2 to clarify that there is no legal apportionment of permanent disability, specifically regarding the neck injury. This amendment clarifies the non-apportionment principle for permanent disability in this case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportDecision After ReconsiderationFinding of FactLegal ApportionmentPermanent DisabilityNeck Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF THEROUX v. Reilly

The New York State Court of Appeals addressed whether eligibility for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c requires a 'heightened risk' standard for injuries sustained by municipal employees in law enforcement duties. The court concluded that section 207-c does not mandate such a standard, interpreting 'duties' to encompass the full range of a covered employee's job responsibilities. It clarified that eligibility only necessitates demonstrating a 'direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury.' Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division orders in three consolidated cases (Theroux v Reilly, Wagman v Kapica, and James v County of Yates Sheriff’s Dept.) that had erroneously applied the 'heightened risk' standard, reinstating Supreme Court orders in two and remitting one for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipJob DutiesPublic Safety Officers
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartoo v. Buell

This case addresses whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) applies to structures used for both residential and commercial purposes. The court applies a "site and purpose" test to determine applicability. In Bartoo v Buell, the repair of a barn roof, used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage, was deemed primarily residential, thus granting the owner exemption. In Anderson v Flanagan, the addition of a bedroom to a home also operating a daycare center was found to be directly related to residential use, exempting the owner from liability. The Court concluded that owners of one- or two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work are shielded by the homeowner exemption when the work directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawDual-Use PropertyResidential UseCommercial UseStrict LiabilitySite and Purpose TestScaffold CollapseRoof RepairBedroom Addition
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 20,493 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