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
Jun 10, 2008

Preserver Ins. Co. v. Ryba

This case involves a dispute between two insurers, Preserver Insurance Company and Northern Assurance Company of America, regarding the scope of an employers' liability policy. The central issue was whether Preserver's employers' liability coverage for East Coast Stucco & Construction, Inc. was limited to $100,000 or was unlimited, particularly after a construction worker, Arthur Ryba, suffered a grave injury in New York. The Court of Appeals found that the policy, issued and delivered in New Jersey, was not "issued for delivery" in New York, thus Preserver was not subject to New York's timely disclaimer rule under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The Court further concluded that the policy's clear terms limited the employers' liability coverage to $100,000 per accident, rejecting arguments that New York insurance manual provisions for unlimited coverage applied when New York was listed as an "Other States Insurance" (Item 3.C.) state without explicit notification and reclassification to an "Item 3.A." state. The Appellate Division's order was reversed, limiting Preserver's indemnification duty.

Workers' CompensationEmployers' LiabilityInsurance PolicyCoverage LimitsDisclaimer of CoverageNew York LawNew Jersey LawInter-insurer DisputeConstruction AccidentGrave Injury
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00338 [168 AD3d 1249]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Cerobski v. Structural Preserv. Sys.

Claimant Marek Cerobski filed for workers' compensation following a workplace injury in June 2015 to his right leg and back. The employer and carrier (Structural Preservation Systems) failed to timely file a prehearing conference statement, leading to preclusion from raising defenses, including a later-asserted fraud claim under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant had committed fraud, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, determining that the carrier's fraud claim was untimely and defenses were waived due to their procedural defaults. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the carrier's failure to file the required prehearing statement and demonstrate good cause for delay resulted in a proper waiver and preclusion of its defenses, including the fraud allegation and relitigation of established issues like accident and notice.

Workers' Compensation LawPrehearing Conference StatementWaiver of DefensesFraud ClaimCausal RelationshipAccident and NoticeCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00748 [136 AD3d 423]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2016

DaSilva v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Carlos DaSilva was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (SPS) and Archstone entities, after falling from scaffolding that moved. The court found his accident was proximately caused by a Labor Law violation and rejected the recalcitrant worker defense due to lack of evidence he knew he was expected to use a ladder. Defendant Everest Scaffolding, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing a contractual indemnification cross-claim was granted. However, SPS and Archstone's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims was denied, as triable issues of fact existed regarding SPS's supervisory control and constructive notice. The Appellate Division affirmed these lower court orders.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSupervisory ControlConstructive NoticeThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gentile v. Nulty

Police Officer Steven Gentile sued his employers, Kevin A. Nulty (Chief of Police) and the Town of Orangetown, alleging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York General Municipal Law § 207-c.l. Gentile claimed defendants continually denied him workers' compensation benefits in retaliation for previous legal actions to secure those benefits related to two work-related injuries: post-traumatic stress disorder and physical injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, arguing Gentile waived his rights by paying doctors directly and that they preserved their right to challenge liability. The court denied defendants' motions, finding Gentile had not waived his rights and defendants had not preserved their right to challenge liability, and stated an inclination to grant partial summary judgment to Gentile on the issue of liability.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPolice Officer RightsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c.lRetaliatory ActionsDue ProcessFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentWaiver of RightsSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Dismiss
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05941
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2025

Grala v. Structural Preserv. Sys., LLC

This case involves a consolidated action for personal injuries filed by Pawel Grala and his wife against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (Structural) and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Structural subsequently filed a third-party action against Apex Development, Inc. (Grala's employer) and Maciej Witczak. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, concerning motions for summary judgment on claims of contractual and common-law indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and Apex's counterclaims. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants on the cause of action alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against Apex. In all other respects, the Supreme Court's order, which denied other branches of the third-party defendants' motion and granted the cross-motion to dismiss Apex's counterclaims, was affirmed.

Personal InjuryWorksite AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law
References
22
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24081
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2004

Matter of Manhattan Plaza Assocs., L.P. v. Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of New York

The case involves Manhattan Plaza Associates, L.P. (petitioner) seeking to annul HPD's decision granting Michael Madden succession rights to his deceased parents' Section 8 apartment. HPD's Administrative Law Judge Helen Levy had denied Manhattan Plaza's eviction request, finding Michael Madden was entitled to succession despite not being listed on annual income affidavits, as he proved co-occupancy. Manhattan Plaza argued that federal law, as interpreted in Matter of Evans v Franco, made the absence from affidavits dispositive. The court disagreed, distinguishing Evans by noting it permitted agency discretion to hold a hearing and that state law generally controls landlord-tenant issues unless explicitly conflicting with federal law. The court found HPD's rule allowing rebuttal of the presumption was consistent with Section 8 purposes, upholding HPD's decision.

HousingSection 8Succession RightsMitchell-Lama LawAdministrative LawEvictionFamily MemberPrimary ResidenceNew York Supreme CourtCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1988

Claim of Valverde v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

The claimant was injured in a fall while working as a superintendent in a New York City apartment house. The central issue in this appeal was whether the Workers’ Compensation Board erred in finding that the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) was the claimant's employer, making them responsible for workers' compensation. HPD had successfully initiated a special proceeding to appoint a '7A Administrator' for the premises, who then managed the building and supervised the claimant. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found both the administrator and HPD as employers, but the Board ultimately concluded HPD was the sole employer. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the Board had ample basis to conclude HPD utilized the administrator as its agent, thereby qualifying as the claimant’s employer for Workers’ Compensation Law purposes.

Employer-employee relationship7A AdministratorAgencyWorkers' Compensation BoardBuilding managementHousing preservationAppellate DivisionSpecial employerGeneral employerFactual determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Department of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation

Plaintiffs Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (CSEA), Hatti Langsford, and Krystal Bullock initiated this action against the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), alleging gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation under Title VII. The claims stem from alleged discriminatory practices and a hostile work environment created by their supervisor, Michael Krish, which ultimately led to the constructive discharge of Langsford and Bullock. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. While granting OPRHP's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss CSEA due to lack of standing, the court denied the remainder of OPRHP's motion, finding sufficient genuine issues of material fact regarding Langsford and Bullock's hostile work environment and retaliation claims to proceed to trial.

Title VIIGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentAssociational StandingConstructive DischargeEmployment LawSupervisor MisconductEEOC Investigation
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 12,148 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