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
Feb 20, 2024

Brown v. Window King LLC

Plaintiff Mary Elena Brown sustained personal injuries when a screwdriver dropped by a window installer, Wilson Rivera, hit her head in a parking lot of a condominium building managed by Stillman Management Inc. The installer was working for Window King LLC. Stillman moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty, but the court found questions of fact regarding its control over the premises. Window King also sought summary judgment, contending Rivera was an independent contractor, but issues of fact arose regarding Rivera's employment status and potential vicarious liability. The Supreme Court initially granted Window King's motion and denied Stillman's. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Stillman's cross-claims against Window King, and otherwise affirmed, finding unresolved factual disputes regarding both Stillman's duty of maintenance and Window King's potential vicarious liability for Rivera's negligence.

Summary judgmentPersonal injuryVicarious liabilityRespondeat superiorIndependent contractorProperty managementPremises liabilityAppellate reviewCross-claimsTort liability
References
10
Case No. CA 15-01122
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

KING, III, JOSEPH v. MALONE HOME BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph King III commenced this Labor Law action against Malone Home Builders, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a fall through an unguarded stairwell during construction. King moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and to dismiss the defendant's special employee defense, which claimed workers' compensation as the sole remedy. The Supreme Court conditionally granted King's motion for liability but denied the dismissal of the special employee defense, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division granted King's motion in its entirety, dismissing the defendant's special employee defense based on collateral estoppel from a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, and affirmed the partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability for the plaintiff.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentUnguarded StairwellPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 657034/2017
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2018

NSB Advisors, LLC v. C.L. King & Assoc., Inc.

Petitioner NSB Advisors, LLC sought to confirm a FINRA arbitration award against Respondent C.L. King & Associates, Inc., stemming from financial losses in 2011-2012. CL King cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging manifest disregard of the law by the arbitration panel. The Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Charles E. Ramos, reviewed the case under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), noting the extremely limited grounds for vacating an arbitration award. The court found CL King's arguments to be speculative and insufficient, and its failure to provide a complete arbitration record detrimental to its claim. Consequently, the court granted NSB's motion to confirm the award and denied CL King's cross-motion to vacate.

Arbitration AwardFINRAFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawVacaturConfirmationBreach of ContractFinancial LossesInvestment AdvisorBroker-Dealer
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07596
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2017

King v. Villette

Franklin King, a stucco worker, was injured after falling from a makeshift scaffold at a residential building owned by Gerald Villette. King, along with his wife, sued Villette, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1). On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and the portion of 241(6) related to Industrial Code § 23-1.16. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) due to conflicting accounts of the accident. Appeals related to a subsequent motion for leave to renew and/or reargue were dismissed or affirmed as reviewed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffolding SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionDuty to Provide Safe WorkplaceProximate CauseIndustrial CodeWorker Safety
References
20
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 NY Slip Op 03676 [239 AD3d 1172]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Matter of Hurley v. Lawrence Sch. Dist.

Peter Hurley, a special education teacher, filed for workers' compensation benefits due to work-related asthma in October 2018. After being reassigned to in-person instruction, he reported illness from construction dust and was subsequently reassigned to a different school's library, which he never reported to, citing medical advice. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Hurley voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, finding that his claim of being too ill to work at the library was not supported by objective medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketAsthma ConditionTeacher ReassignmentMedical Opinion ConflictSubjective vs. Objective Medical EvidenceEmployer Job Offer RefusalAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardDisability Determination
References
7
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
Jul 01, 1999

Spitzer v. Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sara Spitzer, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Kings Plaza Shopping Center of Flatbush Avenue, Inc., and Germonds Properties Corporation. Spitzer had suffered personal injuries from a slip and fall incident at the shopping center, allegedly due to a maintenance worker. The defendants presented evidence that an independent contractor, not their employees, performed the cleaning services. The court found no intrinsic danger in the cleaning activity and no proof of defendant control over the contractor's work. Consequently, the defendants were not held liable for the independent contractor's alleged negligence, and the order dismissing the complaint against them was affirmed.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceSlip and FallProperty Owner LiabilityMaintenance ServicesConcurring Opinion
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 20,639 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