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

Thai Airways International Ltd. v. United Aviation Leasing B.V.

Plaintiff Thai Airways International, Ltd. sued defendants United Aviation Leasing B.V. and others under the civil provisions of RICO and state law, alleging unlawful conversion of security deposits and wire fraud. The court had previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, defendants moved again for dismissal. The court found that while the wire fraud claim was particularized, the conversion claim against other unnamed lessees failed to meet pleading requirements. Furthermore, the eligible predicate acts were deemed insufficient to satisfy the continuity requirement for a viable RICO claim. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without leave to replead, as the court lacked federal jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

RICO ActWire FraudCivil ProcedureRule 9(b)RacketeeringContinuity RequirementConversion of FundsSecurity DepositsAirplane LeaseJurisdiction Dismissal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1998

Hernandez v. Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman

Plaintiff Sumaira Hernandez filed an action against her employer, Defendant Jackson Lewis, alleging quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment, unlawful retaliation, and unlawful discrimination based on race and national origin, pursuant to Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Hernandez claimed that a billing coordinator, Mr. Mack, solicited sexual favors in exchange for overtime, and that the comptroller, Mr. Patterson, engaged in discriminatory practices regarding work assignments, bonuses, and promotions, and responded inappropriately to her complaints. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing prompt action and insufficient evidence for various claims. The Court denied the motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding employer liability, quid pro quo harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRetaliationDiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
16
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02157 [193 AD3d 733]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2021

Matter of Hernandez v. Port Wash. Union Free Sch. Dist.

Edwin Hernandez, a motor equipment operator, was terminated from his employment with the Port Washington Union Free School District after sustaining injuries on the job and subsequently being charged with misconduct for allegedly being out of work on workers' compensation while able to perform his duties. Following a hearing pursuant to Civil Service Law § 75, a hearing officer found Hernandez guilty of 14 disciplinary charges and recommended termination, which the District adopted. Hernandez commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the determination. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the administrative determination, finding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty of termination was not shocking to one's sense of fairness, thus confirming the determination and dismissing the petition.

Employee TerminationMisconductCivil Service Law § 75CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LeaveDisciplinary ChargesPublic Employment
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03378
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Hernandez v. 767 Fifth Partners, LLC

Tommy Hernandez, the plaintiff, was injured when the plywood platform of a baker's scaffold collapsed beneath him while he was installing window soffits. He moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which was granted by the Supreme Court, New York County. The third-party defendant, J.P. Phillips, Inc., appealed, arguing that Hernandez was the sole proximate cause of the accident. However, Phillips failed to provide proof that the scaffold was an adequate safety device. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order, finding that potential comparative negligence did not preclude summary judgment as Phillips's foreman was aware of workers moving scaffolds in the manner described.

Scaffold CollapseLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationWorkplace AccidentConstruction SafetyThird-Party ActionComparative NegligenceNew York Appellate DivisionWorker Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1989

Hernandez v. New York City

The plaintiff, Antonio Hernandez, was seriously injured after falling through an unguarded opening during a reconstruction project at the St. George Terminal of the Staten Island Ferry. He sued the City of New York, as owner, and Sylvestri Contracting Corporation, the general contractor, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 for failing to provide proper safeguards. Hernandez moved for partial summary judgment on liability, but the Supreme Court, Richmond County, denied his motion. This appellate court affirmed that denial, finding a factual issue as to whether the opening was 'reasonably required for proper construction,' which is a statutory exception to the planking requirement under Labor Law § 241 (4). Therefore, the plaintiff did not establish a right to judgment as a matter of law regarding the defendants' duty.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentStatutory ExceptionPlanking RequirementNondelegable DutyGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1985

Linares v. Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Time Moving and Storage (employer) and Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp. (vehicle lessor), in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the plaintiff's exclusive remedy against both the employer and the vehicle owner, as the injury occurred while the plaintiff was a passenger in an employer-leased vehicle driven by a co-employee. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint and bill of particulars, citing the significant delay (nearly four years after inception of the lawsuit) and completion of all discovery.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyCo-employee NegligenceLeased Vehicle LiabilityAppellate AffirmationMotion to Amend PleadingsBill of ParticularsDelay in Litigation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. Salem Truck Leasing, Inc.

The defendants, Salem Truck Leasing, Inc., and Jose E. Cofresi, appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff was a passenger in a truck operated by Cofresi and owned by Salem, and both were co-employees involved in an accident during their employment. The appeals court modified the order, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Cofresi, citing Workers' Compensation Law co-employee immunity. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Salem Truck Leasing, Inc., as a triable issue of fact existed regarding Salem's alleged independent negligence in maintaining the truck.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee ImmunityVehicle AccidentTruck LeasingNegligenceAppellate ReviewMotion PracticeKings County
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05813 [198 AD3d 564]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2021

Hernandez v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

Plaintiff Ramon Hernandez sued Consolidated Edison for negligence after his hand was pulled into a bread machine operating in reverse due to Con Ed's faulty rewiring of subterranean electrical cables. A jury found Con Ed negligent and awarded Hernandez damages for past and future pain and suffering, as well as lost earnings. Con Ed's motion to set aside the jury verdict was denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The court found that the trial evidence sufficiently supported the jury's verdict regarding Con Ed's negligence and the awarded damages, and dismissed Con Ed's other contentions.

NegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryElectrical WiringDamages AwardPain and SufferingLost EarningsJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 20,701 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