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
Dec 16, 2004

US Underwriters Ins. Co. v. CITY CLUB HOTEL

The New York Court of Appeals addresses whether an insured who prevails in a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer to deny coverage may recover attorneys' fees, regardless of whether the insurer provided a defense in the underlying suit. U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company had disclaimed coverage for City Club Hotel, LLC and Shelby Realty, LLC after a construction worker's injury, but still provided Shelby a defense. The insurer then initiated a declaratory judgment action to establish it had no duty to defend or indemnify. The District Court's finding that the disclaimer was untimely and its denial of attorneys' fees were appealed. The Court of Appeals, responding to certified questions from the Second Circuit, affirmed that Shelby, as a prevailing insured, is entitled to recover attorneys' fees because these expenses arose as a direct consequence of the insurer's unsuccessful attempt to disclaim policy obligations. The court explicitly answered the first certified question in the affirmative, while declining to answer the second.

Insurance LawDeclaratory JudgmentAttorneys' FeesDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyNew York Court of AppealsCertified QuestionsInsurer ObligationsPolicy DisclaimerTimeliness of Disclaimer
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06738 [210 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Aguilera v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

Plaintiff, Anneldy Aguilera, was injured after slipping on an unidentified wet substance in the women's restroom at a BJ's Wholesale Club store. The defendant, BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. A maintenance worker's testimony of regular, twice-hourly inspections and cleaning of the bathroom was presented as prima facie evidence. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that a timeframe of four to thirty minutes was insufficient to establish constructive notice.

Premises liabilitySlip and fallSummary judgmentConstructive noticeActual noticeMaintenanceBathroom accidentAppellate affirmanceWet substanceHazardous condition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Severino v. Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc.

Peter Severino, an injured worker, and his wife, Patricia Severino, filed suit after Peter sustained injuries at a construction site in Colonie, Albany County. The site was owned by Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc. and Schuyler Meadows Country Club, Inc., with Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc. (BBLD) as the general contractor. Peter was injured when a ladder he was using shifted and an angle iron fell, striking him. The complaint alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict against Schuyler and BBLD for violating Labor Law § 240(1), dismissed claims against Schenectady Steel Company, Inc., and denied BBLD's motion against Brownell Steel, Inc. The jury found BBLD 20% liable and Brownell 80% liable. The judgment and order were affirmed on appeal.

Construction Site AccidentLadder FallFalling ObjectLabor Law ViolationsDirected VerdictIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04775
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Smith v. Girls Club of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of plaintiff Mark A. Smith's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Girls Club of New York. Smith was injured while voluntarily participating in a community service program. The court found that Smith failed to establish he was an "employee" entitled to the protections of Labor Law § 240 (1), a prerequisite for his claim. His reliance on the Workers' Compensation Law was deemed unavailing, and new evidence submitted did not alter the determination. The court concluded that Smith was not employed by an agent of the defendant.

Labor Law § 240(1)Community Service ProgramEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewVoluntary ParticipationPersonal InjuryScope of EmploymentJudiciary Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubeis v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Aldo Rubeis was injured after falling from a ladder while installing a steel cupola, sustaining a brain injury. He sued Aqua Club, Inc., who then impleaded Rubeis's employer, Venezia Iron Works, Inc., alleging a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court denied Venezia Iron Works' motion to dismiss, and a jury found Rubeis sustained a grave injury. Venezia Iron Works appealed. The Appellate Division reviewed the definition of "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, specifically "permanent total disability" in the context of brain injury cases. The Court concluded that Rubeis's injuries, despite their severity, did not meet the "narrowly defined" standard for grave injury based on prior precedents, which focus on day-to-day functions rather than just employability. Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, granted Venezia Iron Works' motion, and dismissed the third-party complaint.

Grave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Permanent Total Disability DefinitionBrain Injury SeverityCommon Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimThird-Party Action DismissalAppellate Review StandardsStatutory InterpretationEmployer Liability Exemption
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01908 [170 AD3d 1515]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2019

Matter of Jonathan L. v. Poole

Petitioner Jonathan L. commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a fair hearing determination that denied his request to amend and seal an indicated report of child maltreatment. The report alleged that petitioner maltreated his 10-year-old son by striking him with a belt, causing marks. The Administrative Law Judge found a preponderance of evidence that petitioner caused marks on the child's back and possibly one leg, concluding he placed the child at imminent risk of physical and emotional impairment. However, the Appellate Division found the determination was not supported by substantial evidence, as DSS failed to establish the requisite impairment of the child's physical, mental, or emotional well-being. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and granted the petition, directing the report be amended and sealed.

Child MaltreatmentCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFamily LawSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78 ProceedingFair Hearing
References
7
Case No. CA 12-01901
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2013

CUSTER, KEITH J. v. JORDAN, JONATHAN

Plaintiff Keith J. Custer sustained injuries after falling from a stepladder placed on scaffolding while installing siding on a single-family home. He initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Jonathan Jordan and Randy Ewings. The property was under a contract of sale between Ewings (seller) and Jordan (buyer), but Ewings retained title at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court initially granted Ewings' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and denied Custer's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding that Ewings was an 'owner' for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1) because he retained title and derived commercial benefit, thus not qualifying for the homeowner exemption. The court further determined that Custer had met his burden for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as he was engaged in protected activity, not furnished with requisite safety devices, and the absence of such devices was a proximate cause of his injuries. The claim against Ewings under Labor Law § 240 (1) was reinstated, and Custer's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability was granted.

Labor Law 240(1)Owner LiabilityHomeowner ExemptionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightScaffoldingStepladderWorker Injury
References
30
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04901 [208 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2022

Flores v. Crescent Beach Club, LLC

Plaintiff Robert Flores sustained injuries while demolishing a wooden pergola and subsequently filed two personal injury actions, later consolidated, against Crescent Beach Club, LLC and Lad Creative, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Lad Creative, Inc. appealed a Supreme Court order denying its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. It found that Lad Creative failed to establish, prima facie, that it was not a general contractor or agent under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus affirming the denial of summary judgment for that specific claim. However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action, concluding that Lad Creative had shown the inapplicability of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (c) for the § 241 (6) claim and that it lacked authority to supervise or control the work for the common-law negligence and § 200 claims.

Personal InjuryDemolition AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. CA 12-02373
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

ABBOTT, JONATHAN v. CROWN MILL RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT

The plaintiff, Jonathan Abbott, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall. A default judgment was entered against Crown Mill after it failed to appear at a damages inquest. Crown Mill moved to vacate the default judgment, citing law office failure and meritorious defenses, including that the Workers' Compensation Law barred recovery. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, affirming the denial to vacate the default judgment but granting the motion in part to vacate the default judgment only insofar as it awarded specific damages. The case was remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for a new assessment of damages. The court found Crown Mill failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and did not prove fraud or misrepresentation. Additionally, appeals related to an enforcement action based on piercing the corporate veil were dismissed or affirmed.

Default JudgmentVacaturDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewLaw Office FailureCorporate Veil PiercingNegligencePersonal InjuryAppealsJudicial Discretion
References
27
Case No. 2 NY3d 787
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Underwriters Insurance v. City Club Hotel, LLC

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two certified questions from the Second Circuit regarding an insured's right to recover attorneys' fees. U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company had sought a declaratory judgment against its insureds, City Club Hotel, LLC and Shelby Realty, LLC, to deny coverage for a personal injury claim. The insurer's disclaimer of coverage was found untimely. The Court held that an insured who prevails in an insurer-initiated declaratory judgment action to deny coverage may recover attorneys' fees, irrespective of whether the insurer initially provided a defense in the underlying suit. This decision underscores that the insurer's duty to defend extends to litigation arising from its attempts to avoid policy obligations. The Court answered the first certified question in the affirmative for Shelby.

Declaratory Judgment ActionAttorneys' FeesInsurer Duty to DefendInsurance CoverageUntimely DisclaimerPrevailing PartyCertified QuestionSecond CircuitNew York Court of AppealsPolicy Obligations
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 248 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