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. 2024 NY Slip Op 01782 [226 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2024

Nunez v. SY Prospect LLC

Plaintiff Arlender Nunez successfully moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant SY Prospect LLC. Plaintiff fell from an unsecured ladder while performing work, asserting SY Prospect LLC failed to provide necessary safety devices. The court found plaintiff established a prima facie case that his injuries were proximately caused by a Labor Law violation. Defendants failed to present evidence to rebut this or to support a 'recalcitrant worker defense'. The Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.

Ladder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseConstruction AccidentUnsecured LadderBuilding Owner LiabilityAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynoso v. Prospect Associates, L.P.

Plaintiff Luis Reynoso, an employee, sustained injuries when an interior staircase collapsed during demolition work at a building owned by defendant Prospect Associates, L.P. and for which defendant Flintlock Construction, Inc. was the general contractor. Reynoso filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices. Defendants disputed whether Reynoso was authorized to be in the building and the nature of the work he was performing, as demolition was not officially scheduled. The Supreme Court denied both plaintiffs' and defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, finding significant factual disputes. The appellate court affirmed this denial, emphasizing that issues regarding plaintiff's authorization and the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to the staircase must be resolved at trial.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentStaircase CollapseDemolition Work InjuryWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityAuthorization DisputeFactual DisputesAppellate AffirmationConstruction Accident
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00832 [125 AD3d 435]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2015

Matter of Prospect Park E. Network v. New York State Homes & Community Renewal

This case involves an appeal regarding a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction aimed at halting work and public financing for a project until a further environmental review is conducted. Petitioners, including Prospect Park East Network, sought to annul a negative declaration of environmental impact issued by the New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that HFA properly identified and thoroughly reviewed environmental concerns, providing a reasoned basis for its determination of no significant adverse environmental impacts. The court also found that any misclassification of the project as a Type I action was a harmless error since the appropriate review procedures were followed. Additionally, the court noted that HFA's financing impact was slight because the project could proceed without its funding.

Environmental ReviewPreliminary InjunctionNegative DeclarationHousing Finance AgencySEQRAType I ActionHarmless ErrorAppellate DivisionArticle 78Urban Development
References
7
Case No. 00-CV-1598
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2003

Jenkins v. NORTHWOOD REHAB. & EXTENDED CARE FACIL.

Plaintiff Pamela Joan Jenkins sued her prospective employer for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging failure to accommodate her back problems which limited her lifting capacity as a physical therapist. The employment offer was rescinded after a health questionnaire revealed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, a job requirement. Highgate considered and rejected various accommodations, deeming them impractical, unsafe, or requiring the elimination of essential job functions. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting test and found that Jenkins could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA, unable to perform the essential functions of the job even with accommodation. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice.

ADA discriminationDisability employmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsSummary judgmentPhysical therapistBack injuryMcDonnell Douglas testQualified individualEEOC claim
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 1983

In re the Claim of Behnke

The claimant, a school bus driver for White Carriage Corporation, indicated unavailability for the 1982-1983 school year due to plans to move up-State for a better job without firm prospects. Despite an inquiry from the employer in August 1982, the claimant declined to drive. The claimant applied for unemployment benefits in September 1982 and was initially disqualified from receiving benefits for voluntarily leaving employment without good cause. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this determination, concluding the claimant was laid off and that refusing a job offer before claiming benefits was not disqualifying. However, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant's stated intention to move and not return to work constituted a voluntary separation from employment without good cause, thereby sustaining the employer's objection to benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary SeparationGood CauseRefusal of EmploymentLayoffSchool Bus DriverUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEligibility for BenefitsJob ProspectsAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Northwood Rehabilitation & Extended Care Facility

The plaintiff, a physical therapist with a long-standing back condition, sued her prospective employer, Highgate Manor, for disability discrimination after they rescinded her job offer. Highgate deemed her inability to perform maximum assist lifts, requiring her to lift 50-100 pounds, an essential function of the physical therapist role. Despite considering accommodations such as assigning an aide or using mechanical lifts, Highgate concluded these were impractical, burdensome, or unsafe for patient care. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Munson, applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test and granted Highgate's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff was not a "qualified individual" as she could not perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and state law claims without prejudice.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActEmployment LawReasonable AccommodationEssential Job FunctionsSummary JudgmentPhysical TherapyBack InjuryHiring PracticesMcDonnell Douglas Test
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2004

School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz

Plaintiffs School of Visual Arts (SVA) and Laurie Pearlberg sued former employee Diane Kuprewicz for alleged unlawful harassment. The harassment included posting false job listings online and sending a large volume of unsolicited pornographic emails to Pearlberg's work address and SVA's computer system. The plaintiffs brought six causes of action, including claims under the Lanham Act, for defamation, trade libel, violation of Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51, trespass to chattels, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The court denied Kuprewicz's motion to dismiss the trespass to chattels claim, finding sufficient allegations of harm to SVA's computer systems. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss all other claims, ruling that the job postings were not defamatory, the Lanham Act claims lacked commercial use, and the Civil Rights Law and intentional interference claims did not meet their statutory elements.

HarassmentFalse Job PostingsTrespass to ChattelsDefamation ClaimsLanham Act ClaimsCivil Rights Law ViolationIntentional InterferenceCyber HarassmentMotion to DismissInternet Law
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Uto v. Job Site Services Inc.

Plaintiffs Paulino Uto, Jose Edwin Lopez, and Jose Aas, former employees of Job Site Services Inc. (JSS), filed a collective action against JSS and its owner, John O'Shea. They allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, claiming unpaid overtime, partial payment for hours worked, and unpaid minimum wage. The plaintiffs sought a protective order against defendants' discovery requests for social security numbers and income tax returns, arguing irrelevance and potential prejudice regarding their immigration status. Defendants contended the information was necessary for an "unclean hands" defense, implying the plaintiffs were involved in a tax evasion scheme. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that immigration status and social security numbers are generally undiscoverable in FLSA cases due to irrelevance and the risk of intimidation or deportation. Furthermore, the court determined that tax returns were not relevant and lacked a compelling need for disclosure, and the "unclean hands" defense was inapplicable as the plaintiffs' claims were legal, not equitable.

Protective OrderDiscovery DisputeImmigration StatusFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawUnclean Hands DefenseSocial Security NumbersIncome Tax ReturnsWage and Hour
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2001

CSEA Local 1000 v. County of Dutchess

The case involves an Article 78 proceeding challenging the County of Dutchess's reclassification of Social Welfare Worker II job duties and seeking an injunction against out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, granted the petition, and this judgment was affirmed on appeal. The court found that the reclassification was not final and binding due to the County's failure to notify affected employees, thus precluding a statute of limitations defense. Additionally, it was determined that the petitioner union had exhausted its contractual remedies, making the proceeding ripe for judicial review.

CPLR Article 78Job ReclassificationOut-of-title WorkStatute of LimitationsExhaustion of RemediesPublic Sector UnionAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyMunicipal LawAdministrative Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,069 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