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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1993

31 West 47th Street Co. v. Bevona

The case involves a petition to stay arbitration filed by 31 West 47th Street Co. and Lipton against Local 32B-32J, AFL-CIO. The dispute arose after 31 West stopped remitting membership benefit fund contributions, asserting the collective bargaining agreement had expired. The agreement contained an 'Evergreen Clause' stating it would remain in effect until a successor agreement was negotiated or cancelled with a three-day written notice, which 31 West failed to provide. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay, but the appellate court reversed, denying the petition and directing arbitration, emphasizing the 'Evergreen Clause' and that termination issues are for the arbitrator.

Collective bargaining agreementArbitration clauseEvergreen clauseUnion contributionsContract terminationAppellate reversalLabor relationsEmployer-employee disputeCommercial buildingNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2010

Claim of Cucinella v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant, a bus driver, sustained neck and back injuries in March 2000 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits, later found to be permanently partially disabled. In March 2006, the self-insured employer alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. A workers' compensation law judge assessed a mandatory penalty of benefit forfeiture from January 2002 to January 2005. The Workers' Compensation Board modified this to include a discretionary penalty of disqualifying the claimant from future benefits. The claimant appealed this decision; however, the Board subsequently rescinded its October 31, 2008 determination on June 29, 2010, rendering the appeal moot.

Workers' Compensation AppealBenefit ForfeiturePermanent Partial DisabilityMoot AppealSection 114-a ViolationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawEmployer LiabilityDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory Penalty
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1977

Claim of Bonanno v. Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision, filed on April 22, 1977. The Board had previously awarded compensation to the claimant for a partial disability resulting from accidental injuries that occurred on August 19, 1969, specifically covering the period from January 19, 1970, to December 31, 1972. The Board's determination was based on substantial medical testimony, which supported a finding of a continuing causally related partial disability subsequent to January 19, 1970, and affirmed the Referee's award for reduced earnings. The appellate court found substantial evidence to sustain the Board's determination, and consequently, the decision was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier.

Partial DisabilityAccidental InjuriesReduced EarningWorkers' Compensation AwardBoard Decision AppealMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAffirmed DecisionEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2007

Gotay v. Breitbart

This dissenting opinion addresses a legal malpractice action concerning the timeliness of a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff against her former attorneys. The underlying claim involved medical malpractice related to plaintiff's birth in 1977. The central dispute revolves around whether the three-year statute of limitations for the legal malpractice claim had expired. The dissenting judge argues that the attorney-client relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant attorneys (HHM defendants and Breitbart) unequivocally terminated by January 28, 1999, when attorney Mark Hankin informed the plaintiff and her father that his firm would not take the case, and the father requested the immediate return of the file. As the legal malpractice action was commenced on January 31, 2002, more than three years later, the dissent concludes the action is time-barred and criticizes the majority for manufacturing a factual issue not raised by the plaintiff.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineAttorney-Client RelationshipSummary JudgmentWithdrawal of CounselTime-Barred ClaimProfessional NegligenceMedical MalpracticeDissenting Opinion
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06685 [165 AD3d 449]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2018

White v. 31-01 Steinway, LLC

Plaintiff, a sign installer, sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while working on a retail store renovation project. The case involves multiple defendants including the property owner, general contractor, and signage subcontractor, disputing liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying several summary judgment motions, and affirmed others, concluding that issues of fact remained regarding the general contractor's responsibilities for plaintiff's safety and that the signage subcontractor qualified as a statutory agent under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also found Express and the Steinway defendants liable for failure to provide adequate safety devices.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionConstruction Site AccidentFall from LadderGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityStatutory Agent DoctrineContractual Indemnification DisputePersonal Injury ClaimWorkplace Safety Violation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cook-Schoonover v. Corning Hospital

Claimant, an employee at Corning Hospital, suffered psychological injuries due to a verbally harassing work environment from coworkers Lori Glass and Michelle Lewis, leading to hospitalizations and a diagnosis of anxiety attacks, panic disorder, and depression. She filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were initially dismissed by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but later found compensable by the Workers’ Compensation Board, supported by medical reports from Frank Bourke, Michael Cilip, and Albert Wolkoff. The employer and carrier appealed, alleging due process violations, but the court found no record of these requests. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from claimant's testimony and medical reports, and emphasized that psychic injury can result from extended emotional stress and pre-existing vulnerability does not preclude benefits.

work-related stresspsychological injuryhostile work environmentverbal harassmentpanic disorderdepressionworkers' compensation benefitsmedical evidencewitness credibilitydue process
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2002

Claim of Palma v. New York City Department of Corrections

The claimant, a Vietnam veteran and former correction officer, sustained injuries in 1975 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. His case was later reopened to address consequential posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board attributed his PTSD to his Vietnam service, not his employment assault. Claimant's subsequent application for a rehearing and/or reopening of the claim, based on new psychiatric reports from 1999 and 2000, was denied by the Board on January 8, 2002. The Board concluded that the claimant failed to demonstrate the medical evidence was unavailable earlier or indicated a change in his psychiatric condition. This appeal challenged the Board's denial of the rehearing application, rather than the underlying PTSD claim. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary, capricious, or abusive discretion in the denial of the application.

Workers' CompensationAppealRehearingReopening ClaimPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Correction OfficerVietnam VeteranMedical EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barber v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant, who sustained a work-related injury in 1994, was awarded benefits for a moderate partial disability. A Workers’ Compensation Board panel affirmed in March 2006, finding insufficient medical evidence for total disability, but allowed reopening for additional evidence. After a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge modified the award in July 2006 for certain periods, the claimant sought reconsideration of the Board's March 2006 decision to increase the disability rate for an earlier period, which the Board denied in January 2007. The current appeal challenged the denial of reconsideration. The court affirmed the denial, stating that the merits of the March 2006 decision were not reviewable due to the claimant's failure to appeal it directly, and found no abuse of discretion or arbitrary action by the Board in denying reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityTotal DisabilityReconsideration DenialBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 1998

In re Baby Boy B.

The Family Court of New York County issued orders of disposition on January 12, 1998, terminating the respondent's parental rights due to abandonment and committing the children's custody to the petitioner agency and Commissioner of Social Services for adoption. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no reason to overturn the Family Court's rejection of the respondent's testimony regarding attempts to contact the agency. The court concluded that even if the respondent's testimony were credited, the contact was insufficient to prevent a finding of abandonment, especially given a prolonged lack of communication prior to the abandonment period. Ultimately, the termination of parental rights was deemed to be in the children's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentFamily LawChild WelfareAppellate DecisionCredibilityBest Interests of ChildSocial ServicesNew York Family CourtJudicial Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,105 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