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. 2023 NY Slip Op 04674 [219 AD3d 1438]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2023

People v. Jony

This case is an appeal from an order designating the defendant, Hassan M. Jony, as a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Supreme Court, Queens County, assessed 85 points, including 20 points under risk factor 7 for establishing a relationship with the victim for the primary purpose of victimization, and denied a downward departure. Jony challenged both the risk factor 7 assessment and the denial of a downward departure. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, finding clear and convincing evidence that Jony groomed the 13 to 14-year-old complainant through sexually explicit communications after meeting her through her uncle. The court concluded that the facts distinguished the case from People v Cook and upheld the denial of downward departure due to the significant age disparity.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORARisk Factor 7GroomingDownward DepartureAppellate DivisionChild Sexual AbuseRelationship with VictimClear and Convincing EvidencePresumptive Risk Level
References
30
Case No. ADJ763837 (RDG 0127177) ADJ3894868 (RDG 0129247) ADJ2280504 (RDG 0129248)
Regular
Mar 29, 2011

JONI LAMKIN vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision finding applicant sustained three industrial injuries. The Board found the original decision flawed due to inadequate reasoning by the judge and the Qualified Medical Examiner regarding disability ratings under *Almaraz/Guzman*. The Court rescinded the prior order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, citing insufficient explanation for deviation from AMA Guides and a lack of clear findings on separate injuries. This decision mandates that future reports and awards must provide detailed justifications for disability ratings and clearly delineate findings for distinct injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJoni LamkinDepartment of TransportationState Compensation Insurance FundADJ763837ADJ3894868ADJ2280504ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1998

Mohn v. Smith

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which, upon granting reargument, adhered to a prior decision denying their motion for summary judgment and referred the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board. The plaintiff had sued for personal injuries after being struck by a vehicle owned by defendant John Bosch, Inc., and driven by co-defendant Joni Smith. The defendants argued Workers' Compensation benefits were the plaintiff's exclusive remedy, despite a prior WCB determination that the injuries did not arise from employment. The Appellate Division modified the order, ruling that John Bosch, Inc., was bound by the WCB's prior determination and thus dismissed its exclusivity defense. However, the court found a factual question remained regarding Joni Smith's co-worker status at the time of injury, requiring resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Workers' Compensation LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentExclusivity DefenseScope of EmploymentReargumentRenewalAppellate ReviewPrior DeterminationFactual Question
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamkins v. State

A program manager for the State Education Department, referred to as the claimant, was allegedly assaulted and robbed in a State-owned parking lot while commuting to work. After receiving workers' compensation benefits for her injuries, she initiated a tort action against the State, asserting its failure to provide a safe parking environment. The State successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy, a position upheld on appeal. The court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that by accepting benefits, the claimant forfeited her right to pursue additional tort claims. Furthermore, the Workers' Compensation Board's findings regarding the scope of employment are conclusive unless directly appealed and are not subject to collateral attack in a separate action.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelScope of EmploymentState LiabilityTort ClaimAppeal AffirmationInjuryParking Lot
References
5
Case No. ADJ6532010
Regular
Oct 20, 2010

JONI LITTLE vs. ATASCADERO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP INC.

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order that reinstated a lien claimant's dismissed lien, arguing the lien claimant's petition was untimely. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, finding the order reinstating the lien was not a final order as it did not substantively determine liability. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no showing of irreparable harm or prejudice justifying this extraordinary remedy. The lien claimant will still need to prove their case on the merits, and the defendant can present their arguments at further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardreconsiderationremovallien claimantadministrative law judgeCompromise and ReleaseNotice of Intentrescinded orderfinal ordersubstantive right
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2006

Santo v. Scro

An apprentice electrician, injured in a scaffold fall, appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to defendants Martin Scro, Joni Scro, and MDS Enterprises, Inc., dismissing his Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against MDS. The appellate court modified the order, reversing the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, finding that MDS failed to prove the accident was not proximately caused by a violation or that plaintiff's negligence was the sole cause. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, as the plaintiff did not allege a violation of an applicable Industrial Code rule, and the alleged tripping hazard was part of the scaffold itself.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction SiteSafety DevicesProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerIndustrial Code
References
18
Showing 1-6 of 6 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