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. 2017 NY Slip Op 03797 [150 AD3d 930]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2017

Wadlowski v. Cohen

The plaintiff, Jan Wadlowski, was injured after falling 14 feet from a balcony while performing demolition work at the defendant, Phillip Ean Cohen's, home. He initiated an action against Cohen, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, in addition to common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Cohen's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding Cohen's potential direction or control over the work and his notice of the dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryDemolition AccidentBalcony FallLabor LawHomeowner LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkDirection and ControlPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05147 [129 AD3d 897]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2015

Cohen v. State of New York

This case concerns Fashawn Cohen, a former correction officer, who sued the State of New York and the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) for employment discrimination based on disability and retaliation under Executive Law § 296. Cohen sustained a work-related hand injury, received workers' compensation, and was subsequently terminated by DOCS for failing to demonstrate medical fitness to return to work. She alleged that the defendants discriminated by not providing reasonable accommodation. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the disability discrimination claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that Cohen's responses to the termination notice could reasonably be understood as a request for accommodation, and the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that they engaged in a good faith interactive process to assess her needs and the reasonableness of the requested accommodation.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentReasonable AccommodationRetaliationCivil Service LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationTermination
References
2
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. 2017 NY Slip Op 03868 [150 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2017

McMahon v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to Cohen Brothers Realty Corp., thereby dismissing the complaint filed by Michael McMahon et al. The core issue was whether the injured plaintiff was a special employee of Cohen Brothers Realty Corp., which would invoke the workers' compensation law's exclusivity provision as a bar to the lawsuit. Defendant presented evidence demonstrating its control over the plaintiff's hiring, supervision, and work duties, along with providing necessary equipment and materials. Despite plaintiff's attempts to counter this with evidence showing the general employer as the payor and listed employer, the court found insufficient factual dispute to overturn the special employee determination. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the dismissal, concluding that the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law applied.

Summary JudgmentSpecial Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAppellate ReviewEmployment Control TestProperty Management AgreementDismissal of ComplaintLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jacobs v. Cohen

This case involves an action by the president of the Protective Coat Tailors and Pressers’ Union, Local No. 55, against Morris Cohen, Louis Cohen (comprising M. Cohen & Son), and Samuel Nelson, concerning a promissory note. The note was collateral for an agreement compelling the firm to exclusively employ union members and discharge non-members. The court deemed this agreement unlawful and contrary to public policy, referencing *Curran v. Galen* and distinguishing it from *National Protective Assn. v. Cumming*. The decision reversed an interlocutory judgment and overruled a demurrer, validating the defense that the promissory note secured an illegal covenant.

Labor Union ContractPublic PolicyUnlawful AgreementPromissory NoteRestraint of TradeFreedom of EmploymentMonopolyCoercionDemurrerAppeal
References
3
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 05697
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2021

Hensel v. Aviator FSC, Inc.

The plaintiff, Michael Hensel, sustained personal injuries when a heavy soccer board slid off a forklift and struck him while he was loading boards onto a truck. He initiated an action against Aviator FSC, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under that section. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, concluding that the disassembly and removal of the soccer boards constituted 'demolition' and 'altering' within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court further found that the plaintiff's injury resulted from an elevation-related hazard, exacerbated by the defendant's failure to provide adequate safety devices on the modified forklift.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryElevation-related HazardDemolition WorkForklift AccidentAppellate ReviewSafety DevicesStatutory InterpretationAbsolute Liability
References
25
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
Feb 25, 2000

Seward Park Housing Corp. v. Cohen

The dissenting opinion by Justice Friedman argues against the majority's decision to reverse the Appellate Term's ruling, which would have allowed a co-op to enforce its no-pet clause against shareholder Max Cohen. Friedman contends that the majority's overly literal interpretation of Administrative Code § 27-2009.1 (b) disregards legislative intent, which aimed to protect tenants from retaliatory evictions by landlords, not to undermine co-op rules. The dissent asserts that the Code should not apply to cooperatives, and even if it did, the co-op's timely service of a notice to cure and commencement of a summary proceeding should preclude a waiver. Furthermore, Friedman challenges the broad definition of "agent" used by the majority, arguing that security guards and maintenance workers are not agents whose knowledge should trigger the statutory waiver period. The dissent criticizes the majority for rendering the "knowledge" requirement of the statute superfluous and creating practical problems for landlords.

Cooperative LawPet RestrictionLease EnforcementStatutory InterpretationLandlord-Tenant LawWaiver DoctrineLegislative HistoryAppellate ReviewNo-Pet ClauseEviction Proceedings
References
15
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
Showing 1-10 of 20,392 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