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. 2020 NY Slip Op 01251
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2020

Ramos v. 110 Bennett Ave., LLC

Alejo Ramos, an employee, sustained an accident on the property of 110 Bennett Avenue, LLC (Owner). Owner sought summary judgment, arguing Ramos was their 'special employee,' which would limit their liability. The court found no evidence that Owner exercised exclusive control over Ramos's work, despite him being the property superintendent. Evidence showed that Rose Associates, Inc. employees supervised and directed Ramos's work. The court determined that general instructions and wage reimbursements by Owner were insufficient to establish a special employment relationship. The management agreement between Owner and Rose also designated Ramos as an employee of Rose. Therefore, the denial of the Owner's motion for summary judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewControl Over WorkEmployment RelationshipGeneral EmployerProperty ManagementLiability DisputeWorkers' Compensation ImplicationsLegal Precedent
References
6
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04334 [230 AD3d 811]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2024

Ramirez v. Pace Univ.

The plaintiff, Jonathan Ramirez, suffered personal injuries after falling from a scaffold during a construction project at Pace University, which had contracted with NYCAN Builders, LLC to manage the project. Ramirez sued both Pace University and NYCAN Builders, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Ramirez's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of an elevation-related hazard and proximate cause, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or demonstrate that the motion was premature. The court also held NYCAN Builders, LLC liable as a statutory agent under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentConstruction SiteLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionElevation-Related HazardProximate CauseStatutory Agent LiabilityNondelegable Duty
References
12
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00629 [168 AD3d 1112]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2019

Ramos-Perez v. Evelyn USA, LLC

Felipe Ramos-Perez was injured while unloading flooring materials from a truck at a construction site. A hydraulic lift was used to lower heavy pallets, one of which fell and struck the plaintiff. Ramos-Perez commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) against the property owners, Robert Soha Retail, LLC, and Soha Retail Equities, LLC (the Soha defendants). The Supreme Court initially granted the Soha defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Ramos-Perez's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide an appropriate safety device, which was the proximate cause of the injury. Therefore, the Appellate Division denied the Soha defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability.

construction accidentpersonal injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmentliabilityhydraulic liftfalling objectproximate causesafety deviceAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. ADJ8642319
Regular
Apr 24, 2015

ISABEL RAMIREZ-RAMOS (spouse), ANGEL RAMIREZ (deceased) vs. OSTERIA COPPA, LLC, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE (FARMERS INSURANCE)

This case involves a deceased worker whose employer, Osteria Coppa, LLC, is challenging the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's award of death benefits. The employer argued the WCJ erred by disallowing cross-examination and excluding a medical report. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the original award because the employer failed to reject the claim within 90 days, thus triggering a presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b). Furthermore, the employer could not rebut this presumption with the excluded medical report, as the information it contained was discoverable within the 90-day period through reasonable diligence.

WCABIsabel Ramirez-RamosAngel RamirezOsteria CoppaLLCTruck Insurance ExchangeADJ8642319Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurydeath benefits
References
3
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01249 [236 AD3d 693]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2025

Ramos v. Kent & Wythe Owners, LLC

Plaintiff Vidal Ramos was injured while working as a laborer for R&M Repairs and Maintenance, Inc., a subcontractor at a construction site, when an A-frame cart carrying sheetrock overturned, trapping his legs and waist. He sued Kent & Wythe Owners, LLC, and related entities (L&M defendants) under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200. The Supreme Court denied Ramos's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), denied leave to amend his bill of particulars, and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions regarding Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims and the denial of leave to amend. However, it modified the order by denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 claim, finding that the defendants failed to establish prima facie that they were not liable.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyA-frame Cart AccidentSheetrock MovementSubcontractor Liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Rifkin

Plaintiff Reina Ramirez brought an action against Terry and Leah Rifkin alleging failure to pay wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred and that plaintiff did not perform overtime work. The court denied summary judgment on the FLSA overtime claims and state law claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the statute of limitations, willfulness, and equitable tolling, as well as the amount of time plaintiff worked. However, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on federal and state minimum wage claims from mid-2003 to December 8, 2005, based on the plaintiff's concession.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York State Labor LawSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingOvertime PayMinimum WageDomestic WorkerEmployment LawRecord Keeping
References
43
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05325
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2025

Ramos v. Ford Found.

Plaintiff Miguel Ramos was injured when struck by a falling scaffold component. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment to defendants Ford Foundation and Henegan Construction Co., Inc. on plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) and common-law negligence claims, and on their contractual indemnification claim against Harbour Mechanical Corporation. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed Ford and Henegan's second third-party complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, vacating the dismissal of the contractual indemnification claim. It further granted Ford and Henegan conditional contractual indemnification from Harbour, while otherwise affirming the Supreme Court's decision, including the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Labor Law § 240(1)Scaffold AccidentFalling ObjectsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyAppellate ReviewNegligence Claims
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00901
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Ramirez v. Echevarria

Sarah Ramirez, on behalf of Garrison Echevarria, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that ruled Keamesha Echevarria was entitled to death benefits as the surviving spouse of the deceased Gregory Echevarria. The appeal also challenged the denial of an application for reconsideration by the decedent's fiancée. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding that Keamesha Echevarria had not abandoned the decedent, thus qualifying her as a legal spouse for workers' compensation death benefits. The Court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion, as the elements required to establish abandonment were not met. Additionally, the Court upheld the denial of the reconsideration application, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSurviving SpouseDeath BenefitsAbandonmentDomestic Relations LawAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationReconsideration ApplicationCredibility DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. 98 Cr. 1038(SWK)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2006

United States v. Ramos

Defendant Mario Ramos moved to dismiss his indictment, arguing a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174. Ramos, indicted in September 1998 for cocaine distribution conspiracy, was not arrested until March 2004. The Government contended Ramos was a fugitive during this period, exercising due diligence in its efforts to apprehend him by listing his information in national databases, conducting surveillance, and interviewing sources who indicated he fled to the Dominican Republic. Despite Ramos's claims of residing openly in New York and presenting evidence like a renewed driver's license, the Court found his evidence insufficient and his testimony less credible. The Court ultimately denied the motion, concluding that Ramos was primarily to blame for the pre-arrest delay, and any government negligence was minor and did not warrant dismissal.

Speedy Trial ActSixth AmendmentCriminal ProcedureFugitive StatusCocaine Distribution ConspiracyMotion to DismissGovernment Due DiligencePre-arrest DelayCredibility AssessmentFederal Criminal Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLeon v. Ramirez

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued G & G Produce Dealers, Inc. and Stanley Gurda for violating the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act (FLCRA) by engaging Modesto Ramirez as an unregistered farm labor contractor in 1976. The defendants failed to ensure Ramirez possessed a valid certificate of registration, as required by law. The court found that Ramirez's activities, including recruiting, soliciting, hiring, furnishing, and transporting migrant workers for a fee, clearly established him as a farm labor contractor under the Act. Despite defendants' claims, evidence showed they engaged and ratified Ramirez's services, including co-signing his application and deducting transportation costs from workers' wages. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding G & G Produce and Gurda jointly and severally liable for an intentional violation of the FLCRA and awarding liquidated damages of $500 to each of the 13 plaintiffs, totaling $6,500.

Farm Labor Contractor Registration ActFLCRAMigrant WorkersSummary JudgmentUnregistered ContractorLiquidated DamagesJoint and Several LiabilityEmployer ResponsibilityWorker TransportationRecruitment
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 257 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