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

In re Harmon Funeral Home, Inc.

Judge Mikoll dissents from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found an employer-employee relationship between Harmon Funeral Home, Inc. and its pallbearers. The dissent argues that there is not substantial evidence to support this conclusion, citing a lack of control and direction by the funeral home over the pallbearers. Pallbearers are sourced from a livery service, not instructed by the funeral home, and receive no employee benefits. Although a union agreement designated pallbearers as employees, the dissent states this factor alone should not be determinative given the overall circumstances indicating an independent contractor relationship. The dissent concludes that the Board's decision should be reversed.

Employer-employee relationshipPallbearersIndependent contractorWorkers' compensationUnion agreementControl and directionLivery serviceDissentFuneral homeLabor law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1986

Drago v. Drago

The father appealed a Family Court order from Nassau County, directing him to pay weekly child support and arrears to the Support Collection Unit for his daughter. The daughter, after her parents' divorce, was forced to leave her mother's home and was subsequently turned away by her father. She then sought refuge in a state-funded program and initiated support proceedings against her parents. The Family Court found the father still obligated to support her until age 21, rejecting his arguments that she forfeited support by leaving home or not adhering to his conditions. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the daughter had good cause to leave her parents' homes and her father's demands for her to attend boarding school or join the military were unreasonable.

Child SupportParental ObligationFamily CourtNassau CountyAppealAffirmed DecisionEmancipationParental ResponsibilityRunaway YouthGood Cause
References
9
Case No. No. 95 Civ. 5338 (JGK)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

Petition of Home Ins. Co.

The Home Insurance Company (Home) filed a petition to compel arbitration against Svedala Industries Inc. (Svedala) under the Federal Arbitration Act concerning disputed retrospective premiums. Svedala cross-moved to dismiss, arguing the dispute arose under an insurance policy without an arbitration clause and that Home had previously invoked federal jurisdiction in a Wisconsin action. The court clarified that only the Southern District of New York could compel arbitration, as specified in the agreement. The court granted Home's petition, concluding that the broad arbitration clause in the Retrospective Premium Agreement covered the dispute, and denied Svedala's cross-motion, thereby ordering the parties to proceed with arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActRetrospective Premium AgreementWorkers Compensation PolicyMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ProceedingsFirst-Filed RuleContract InterpretationScope of Arbitration ClauseBad Faith Claim
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Speedway Home Improvement Co. v. Gourdine

Speedway Home Improvement Co. (Speedway), a licensed contractor, challenged a decision by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Speedway had contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Hannon for home renovation, but after commencing work and receiving partial payments, abandoned the project due to alleged underestimation, demanding further price increases which the Hannons refused. The Hannons filed a complaint with DCA, which, after a hearing, found Speedway guilty of abandoning the contract without justification and awarded the Hannons $21,110. Speedway argued that the DCA hearing denied due process and that the award was arbitrary and excessive. The court, however, found that Speedway received due process, the DCA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the monetary award was not a disproportionate penalty but merely compensated the Hannons for expenses incurred in hiring a second contractor. Consequently, the court denied Speedway's petition and dismissed the proceeding.

CPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewConsumer ProtectionHome Improvement ContractBreach of ContractDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceMonetary DamagesAgency DiscretionContract Abandonment
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06107 [243 AD3d 986]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

Matter of Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc. v. McDonald

The case involves Dunkez Private Home Care, Inc., a licensed home care services agency, challenging the Commissioner of Health's determination to revoke its license and impose a monetary penalty. The revocation stemmed from multiple deficiencies found during DOH surveys in 2019 and 2021, a substantiated patient complaint, and the agency's failure to comply with a temporary suspension order. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Commissioner's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found the penalty, license revocation and a monetary fine, was not disproportionate or shocking to one's sense of fairness, considering the serious danger posed to vulnerable patients.

Home Care Services AgencyLicense RevocationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of HealthCPLR Article 78Monetary PenaltyTemporary Suspension OrderPatient Care Deficiencies
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond v. Reilly Homes Construction Corp.

Plaintiffs Dale A. Diamond and James Panek sustained injuries at a construction site in East Fishkill while assembling a modular home. The accident occurred when a suspended roof section, being hoisted to allow for 'knee wall' installation, fell on them due to bracket failure. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants Reilly Homes Construction Corporation, Chelsea Homes, Inc., and Royal Crane, Inc. The Supreme Court initially denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes, while also granting summary judgment to Royal Crane. The appellate court modified the orders, reversing the denials against Reilly Homes and Chelsea Homes and granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs, but affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Royal Crane.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction Site AccidentFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHoist ApparatusElevation DifferentialWorker SafetyContractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2001

Vanderwerff v. Home

This case concerns an appeal by a plaintiff and defendant Otis Elevator, Inc., from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The order granted summary judgment to Victoria Home, dismissing the plaintiff's personal injury complaint against it, and also granted judgment dismissing Otis Elevator's cross claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, holding that the plaintiff, having received Workers’ Compensation benefits from her general employer, was a special employee of Victoria Home. Consequently, the plaintiff's action against Victoria Home was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court found that Victoria Home exclusively controlled the manner and details of the plaintiff's work while she was employed there, thus establishing a special employment relationship.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceTort LawNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mafia v. Creekview Homes Ltd.

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, which had granted summary judgment to the defendant Creekview Homes, Ltd., and dismissed the complaint against all defendants in a personal injury action. The appellate court found that Creekview Homes, Ltd. failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Affidavits submitted by Creekview Homes regarding the injured plaintiff's workers' compensation claim did not definitively rule out the accident occurring on their property. A triable issue of fact exists concerning the accident location. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order and denied Creekview Homes' motion for summary judgment.

personal injurysummary judgmentappealDutchess Countypremises liabilityworkers' compensation claimprima facie showingtriable issue of factaccident locationappellate court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the general contractor, commenced an action against its subcontractor's insurer, National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, seeking a declaration of coverage. Home Depot, individually and as assignee of Westward Contracting, Inc., sought to compel National Fire to defend and indemnify it as an an additional insured in an underlying action, and to indemnify Westward. The Supreme Court denied Home Depot's discovery motion, granted National Fire summary judgment declaring Home Depot was not an additional insured, and denied National Fire's motion to dismiss Home Depot's claims as Westward's assignee for lack of standing and for summary judgment on the indemnification obligation to Westward. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding Home Depot was not an additional insured and that the assignment to Home Depot was valid and did not relieve National Fire of its indemnification obligation to Westward.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredIndemnificationSummary JudgmentStandingAssignment of ClaimsSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorCommercial General Liability PolicyAppellate Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 6,111 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