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 02405
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Joseph Chen, Inc. v. Romona Keveza Collection LLC

This case, Joseph Chen, Inc. v Romona Keveza Collection LLC, addresses the application of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA) in New York. Plaintiffs Joseph Chen Inc., a photographer's company, and Dina Kozlovska, a fashion model, sought compensation from Romona Keveza Collection LLC (RKC) for unpaid services. The initial Supreme Court order, which denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, was appealed. The Appellate Division clarified that Chen Inc. qualified as a freelance worker under FIFA, even when utilizing assistants, and Kozlovska's prior agency involvement did not negate her freelance status. Consequently, the court modified the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability against RKC, thereby affirming their rights under the Freelance Isn't Free Act.

Freelance Isn't Free ActIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentAdministrative CodeUnpaid ServicesSingle-Person OrganizationAppellate DivisionLiabilityStatutory InterpretationFashion Industry
References
2
Case No. No. 125
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Matter of Joseph A. Terranova, Jr. v. Lehr Construction

Joseph Terranova, a foreman for Lehr Construction Company, sustained a knee injury and sought workers' compensation benefits from Lehr's carrier, New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), and damages from a third-party tortfeasor. After settling with the third party, Terranova was awarded 10% schedule loss of use of his right leg. The Workers' Compensation Board and Appellate Division denied his request for post-settlement apportionment of litigation expenses, citing prior interpretations of Burns v Varriale. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that equitable apportionment of litigation expenses should occur when the present value of a schedule loss of use award is determined, even if after a third-party settlement, to ensure carriers bear their fair share of costs as mandated by Workers' Compensation Law § 29. The court clarified that the timing of the award's quantification, not merely its type, governs the applicability of apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29Third-Party Tortfeasor RecoveryEquitable ApportionmentLitigation ExpensesSchedule Loss of UseInsurance Carrier LienFuture Benefits QuantificationPresent ValueAppellate Division ReversalWorkers' Compensation Board Remittal
References
5
Case No. No. 29, No. 30
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

The Matter of the Claim of Thomas Johnson v. City of New York , The Matter of the Claim of Joseph D. Liuni v. Gander Mountain

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in these appeals: whether a claimant’s schedule loss of use (SLU) award must always be reduced by a prior SLU award to a different subpart of the same body “member” under Workers’ Compensation Law (WCL) § 15. The Court clarified that separate SLU awards for distinct injuries to the same statutory member are permissible, provided the claimant demonstrates that the second injury resulted in an increased loss of use. For Thomas Johnson, the Court affirmed the prior decision, concluding he failed to present sufficient evidence isolating the impairment caused solely by his knee injury, apart from his prior hip injury award. Conversely, for Joseph D. Liuni, the Court reversed and remitted the case, as Liuni had provided evidence through his expert that his elbow and shoulder injuries were separate pathologies, each contributing distinctly to the loss of use of his arm.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Successive InjuriesBody Member ImpairmentEarning CapacityStatutory InterpretationKnee InjuryHip InjuryElbow InjuryShoulder InjuryMedical Expert Testimony
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harley v. Druzba

This action involves Amanda Harley, daughter of Gerald and Jacqueline Harley, suing social worker Joseph V. Druzba, her mother, and maternal grandmother. The dispute arises from events stemming from her parents' contentious divorce, where Druzba was retained for family counseling regarding visitation issues that subsequently deteriorated. Amanda alleged Druzba's negligence resulted in loss of sibling visitation, and claimed torts of custodial interference, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional harm. The court addressed Druzba's motion to dismiss the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth causes of action. The first cause of action, concerning loss of sibling visitation, was not dismissed, acknowledging legislative recognition of such rights, while the remaining four causes of action were dismissed for various legal deficiencies, including lack of standing, no contractual relationship, and New York's stance on common-law invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress in matrimonial contexts.

Sibling Visitation RightsCustodial InterferenceBreach of ContractInvasion of PrivacyIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmMotion to DismissSocial Worker NegligenceFamily CounselingDivorce LitigationCPLR 3211(a)(7)
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00922 [202 AD3d 1243]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Matter of Joseph v. Historic Hudson Val. Inc.

Cathleen Joseph sustained work-related injuries in August 2017 and was subsequently laid off in February 2018. Her claim for workers' compensation benefits was established for various conditions, including postconcussion syndrome. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found her attached to the labor market, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, ruling that Joseph failed to demonstrate an attachment and rescinded awarded benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that Joseph did not actively participate in job location services or conduct a diligent, independent job search within her medical restrictions.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentMedical RestrictionsVocational RehabilitationDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceJob SearchWorkers' Compensation BoardPostconcussion Syndrome
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereira v. St. Joseph's Cemetery

The plaintiff, a cemetery worker named Pereira, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed his personal injury complaint against St. Joseph’s Cemetery, Church of St. Joseph, and the Archdiocese of New York, based on res judicata. Pereira had previously filed a similar action alleging intentional tort, but it was dismissed on appeal because the allegations did not meet the intentional tort exception to Workers' Compensation Law § 29. In the current second action, Pereira rephrased his intentional tort allegations, and the defendants again moved to dismiss, this time citing res judicata, which the Supreme Court granted. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that a prior dismissal for failure to state a cause of action is generally not on the merits and therefore does not trigger the doctrine of res judicata. Consequently, the appellate court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff's second action to proceed.

Personal InjuryRes JudicataWorkers' Compensation LawIntentional TortMotion to DismissFailure to State a Cause of ActionAppellate ReversalPrior DismissalOn the MeritsCemetery Worker
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sasso v. NYMED, Inc.

Judge Mercure, in a partial concurrence and partial dissent, argues against imposing liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for plaintiff Joseph M. Sasso's back injury, despite it occurring on a scaffold. Mercure contends that the injury was not an 'elevation-related risk' as defined by prior case law such as Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. and Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co. The dissent emphasizes that the scaffold's railing fulfilled its function and that the statute's recovery right does not extend to other types of harm, even from defective scaffolds, if not related to falling workers or objects. The final order modifies the original decision by reversing the denial of the cross-motion regarding specific causes of action and claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), granting partial summary judgment to the defendant, and dismissing those claims, while affirming the order as modified.

Scaffold AccidentLabor LawElevation-Related RiskWorker InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionConcurring DissentStatutory InterpretationWorkplace SafetyNegligence Claims
References
6
Case No. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 20,480 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