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. ADJ2024655 (SAC 0331505)
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

MAURICE WEBSTER vs. JOHN L. SULLIVAN CHEVROLET, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION

This order denies Maurice Webster's petition for reconsideration in his workers' compensation case against John L. Sullivan Chevrolet and Safety National Casualty Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Finding no basis for reconsideration, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeDenying ReconsiderationMaurice WebsterJohn L. Sullivan ChevroletSafety National Casualty CorporationADJ204655SAC 0331505Gregory G. Aghazarian
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 1980

Sullivan v. Held

John Sullivan, a 34-year-old foreman, was severely injured after falling from a scaffold while repairing the brick facing of a building. Plaintiffs argued successfully under Labor Law section 240, an absolute liability statute, that the accident was caused by a defective scaffold rope. The defendant and third-party defendant, Nier Sheet Metal Roofing, appealed a jury verdict awarding John Sullivan $1,100,000 for personal injuries and $100,000 for a derivative action. Nier contended that evidence regarding a safety belt was improperly excluded, that comparative negligence (CPLR 1411) should apply to Labor Law § 240 actions, and that the damages were excessive. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the judgment, rejecting all three contentions and upholding the absolute liability principle under Labor Law § 240.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceJury VerdictDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Worker
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04590 [162 AD3d 950]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Sullivan v. New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y.

John Sullivan sued New York Athletic Club of City of New York (NYAC) and Talisen Construction Corporation (Talisen) for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence, sustained while carrying a heavy beam down stairs during a bathroom renovation. Talisen and NYAC sought indemnification from Premier Woodcraft, Ltd. (Premier), Sullivan's employer and a subcontractor. The Supreme Court denied various summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting Premier's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and contractual indemnification claims (except for defense costs). The court also granted Talisen's cross-motion for defense costs against Premier, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Sullivan on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, finding his injury was not caused by an elevation-related hazard, and for both parties regarding breach of insurance agreements due to unresolved factual issues.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related HazardContractual IndemnificationBreach of Agreement to Procure InsuranceSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
17
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06892
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2021

Matter of Chloe L. (Samantha L.)

The Schoharie County Department of Social Services appealed a Family Court order dismissing its petition to adjudicate Chloe L. as an abused and/or neglected child by her mother, Samantha L. Family Court dismissed the abuse claim, finding no sexual gratification purpose in shaving the child, and also dismissed neglect allegations despite crediting the child's testimony. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the dismissal of the neglect allegations, finding that the Family Court erred in its assessment of evidence regarding respondent showing the child a sexual device, inviting the child to remain during intercourse, and showing her pornography. The Appellate Court concluded that neglect was proven by a preponderance of the evidence and remitted the matter to Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

Child NeglectChild AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate DivisionReversalRemittalSexual MisconductPornographyCredibility DeterminationsPreponderance of Evidence
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06966
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

Matter of Lacee L. (Dekodia L.)

Stephanie L., a mother with an intellectual disability, appealed a Family Court decision, affirmed by the Appellate Division, concerning the Administration for Children's Services' (ACS) efforts towards family reunification with her infant daughter, Lacee L. Stephanie L. argued that ACS failed to provide

Disability RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActFamily Court ActChild WelfareFamily ReunificationReasonable EffortsReasonable AccommodationParental RightsNeglect ProceedingsAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04460 [173 AD3d 437]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Madison Sullivan Partners LLC v. PMG Sullivan St., LLC

Plaintiff Madison Sullivan Partners LLC appealed an order that dismissed its complaint against PMG Sullivan Street, LLC and awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants. The plaintiff alleged damages from a joint property development due to delays, cost overruns, bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, and gross negligence by PMG Sullivan. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to demonstrate demand futility under Delaware law, lacking particularized facts to show a 'substantial likelihood' of personal liability for the defendants. Consequently, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting were dismissed. Furthermore, the claim for an accounting was deemed abandoned, and the breach of construction management agreement claim was barred by a waiver of consequential damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, including the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, finding the contractual provision plainly supported such an award to the prevailing party.

Business disputeDemand futilityDelaware lawFiduciary dutyAttorneys' feesConsequential damagesWaiverContract enforcementDerivative actionAppellate review
References
7
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01533 [192 AD3d 1344]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2021

Matter of Micah L. (Rachel L.)

This case concerns the appeal of Rachel L. and Robert L. from an order of the Family Court of Broome County, which granted the Broome County Department of Social Services' application to adjudicate their child, Micah L., as abandoned and terminated their parental rights. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the Family Court's findings, which established by clear and convincing evidence that both the mother and father failed to maintain contact with the child or the agency during the statutory six-month period. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, concluding that the parents did not prove inability to maintain contact or that they were prevented from doing so, and that termination was in the child's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentSocial Services Law § 384-bAppellate ReviewFamily CourtBest Interests of ChildDrug RehabilitationIncarcerationSupervised VisitationClear and Convincing Evidence
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03321
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Jackson v. Hunter Roberts Constr., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Robert Jackson sustained personal injuries after tripping and falling on a plywood ramp at a construction site while working as a plumber. He brought claims against the owner, Hunter Roberts Construction, L.L.C., and the general contractor, Bronx Parking Development Company, L.L.C., under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying the defendants' motion and reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved triable issues of fact concerning constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactPlywood Ramp
References
4
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06780 [121 AD3d 450]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2014

Arner v. RREEF America, L.L.C.

Plaintiff Andrew Arner initiated an action to recover for injuries sustained after allegedly tripping and falling on a Masonite board in a building undergoing construction. The building owners and managers, RREEF America, L.L.C., et al., filed a third-party complaint against several contractors, seeking contractual and common law indemnification, contribution, and alleging failure to procure insurance. Third-party defendants Coda Interiors and Adelphi Restoration Corp. moved for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting Adelphi's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance. The court found that Adelphi had procured the required insurance, and the remaining appeals were otherwise affirmed.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon Law IndemnificationContributionBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,854 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