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

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holland v. United States

In this Federal Tort Claims Act case, a plaintiff sued the United States after slipping and falling in a Post Office in Bronx, New York, on a wet floor during a snowy/rainy day in March 1993. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming the government breached its duty of care. However, the court found that the defendant had taken reasonable precautions, including posting a "Caution — Wet Floor" sign and adhering to standard mopping procedures on wet days. Applying New York law, the court concluded that the government did not breach its duty, as wet floors on rainy days constitute an obvious danger, and a proprietor is not liable unless conditions are inherently dangerous or known dangers are not remedied. Judgment was ultimately entered in favor of the defendant.

Federal Tort Claims ActSlip and FallPost OfficePremises LiabilityGovernment LiabilityNegligenceNew York Negligence LawObvious DangerDuty to WarnStandard of Care
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cariffe v. P/R Hoegh Cairn & M/V Cairn

Plaintiff Frank Cariffe, a longshoreman, was injured by inhaling hazardous Metanil Yellow while unloading drums from a container at Brooklyn Pier #9. The defendant, M/V Hoegh Cairn (CAIRN), was aware of the hazardous nature of the cargo but allegedly failed to label the container or provide a dangerous cargo manifest to Cariffe's employer, Universal Maritime Service Stevedoring Company (UMS). CAIRN moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn because Metanil Yellow was not on the official Hazardous Materials Table at the time of the incident, only on an optional list. The court denied CAIRN's motion, asserting that a shipowner retains a common law duty to warn stevedores of known hidden dangers, even if not specifically mandated by federal regulations for all substances. The court determined that whether CAIRN breached its duty of reasonable care and whether UMS had adequate knowledge or could have discovered the hazard by reasonable care are questions for the trier of fact.

Longshoreman InjuryHazardous CargoDuty to WarnShipowner LiabilitySummary Judgment DenialMetanil YellowMaritime LawFederal RegulationsStevedore ResponsibilityHidden Danger
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03276 [194 AD3d 607]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2021

Alberto v. DiSano Demolition Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order concerning summary judgment motions related to Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence claims arising from a construction accident. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order. It dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against all defendants, granted Niko's Construction's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and partially granted the Sota defendants' motion, while otherwise affirming. The court found issues of fact remaining regarding DiSano, Nick Sota, and Niko's Construction's roles as general contractors or in exercising supervisory control over the work, and Manuela Sota's liability under a dangerous condition theory. Claims against Anna Maria Oppedisano were dismissed entirely.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionConstruction SafetyGeneral Contractor LiabilitySupervisory ControlIndustrial CodeHomeowner ExemptionDangerous ConditionPersonal Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bellomo v. United Arab Shipping Co.(SAG)

Plaintiff Filippo Bellomo, a longshore worker, filed a lawsuit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act against United Arab Shipping Company. He claimed injuries to his right shoulder and elbow after falling on a sheet of ice hidden beneath snow on the deck of the M/V ALWATTYAH, owned by the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no dangerous condition at the time of turnover or that any ice was an obvious hazard. The Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the ice was present at turnover and if it constituted a latent hazard that the shipowner knew or should have known about.

Longshore and Harbor Workers ActSummary Judgment MotionShipowner NegligenceDuty of CareLatent HazardMaritime Personal InjurySlip and FallMaterial Fact DisputeFederal Court ProcedureStevedoring Operations
References
23
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05611 [174 AD3d 1092]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2019

Hull v. The Pike Co.

Plaintiff Craig D. Hull, a facilities worker, sustained severe injuries, including multiple fractures, when a scissor lift he borrowed from The Pike Company tipped over. Hull subsequently filed a lawsuit against The Pike Company, alleging negligent entrustment of the equipment. The defendant sought summary judgment, contending a lack of prior knowledge regarding Hull's potential dangerous use of the lift. However, the Supreme Court denied this motion, citing a material question of fact concerning whether the defendant knew or should have known about Hull's insufficient training. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the defendant failed to prove the absence of a triable issue of fact regarding negligent entrustment and proximate cause.

Negligent EntrustmentSummary JudgmentScissor Lift AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactProximate CauseWorker SafetyConstruction Site LiabilityDuty of Care
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zackery D.

Petitioner initiated a neglect proceeding against Tosha E. (mother), Lindon D. (father), and Stephen F. (mother's boyfriend) for failing to provide adequate care and exposing children Zackery D. and Hunter D. to known sex offenders. The Family Court found neglect by the mother and father but dismissed the petition against the boyfriend, ordering the children to remain in petitioner's custody with an order of protection. The mother appealed the Family Court's July 2013 order. The appellate court affirmed the findings of neglect, concluding that the petitioner successfully demonstrated, through caseworker testimony and evidence of unsanitary conditions and exposure to sex offenders, that the mother failed to exercise a minimum degree of care, leading to impairment or imminent danger of impairment to the children.

NeglectChild CustodyFamily LawChild ProtectionParental RightsAppellate ReviewPreponderance of EvidenceUnsanitary ConditionsChild Sexual AbuseOrders of Protection
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1992

Wernig v. Parents & Bros. Two, Inc.

Dennis Wernig, an employee of Lee's Plumbing and Heating, sued the property owner (defendant) after slipping on ice, alleging negligence due to water runoff from the building's roof. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, which argued a lack of control over the premises. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that a lessor can have a duty if the property is leased for public use with a known dangerous condition, supported by evidence of public use and the defendant's awareness of the runoff issue. The court also rejected the defendant's claim that the suit was barred by Workers' Compensation Law, finding insufficient evidence for an 'alter ego' relationship between the defendant and Wernig's employer. The order denying summary judgment was upheld, and the case will proceed.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentLessor LiabilityDuty of CareWorkers' Compensation LawCorporate VeilAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ReviewIce Accident
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 777 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