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
Sep 20, 2000

Heras v. P.S. 71 Associates, L. L. C.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff, a general laborer, was injured at a building construction site. The plaintiff sued P.S. 71 Associates, L. L. C., the owner and general contractor, and GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp., a subcontractor. P.S. 71 moved for summary judgment, claiming the plaintiff was its employee and thus barred from suing under Workers’ Compensation Law. GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp. also moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not hired until after the accident. The Supreme Court granted P.S. 71's motion and denied GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp.'s motion. On appeal, the order was reversed; P.S. 71's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the complaint against it reinstated, while GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp.'s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityWorkers Compensation DefenseRespondeat SuperiorTriable Issue of FactEvidentiary Proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Twenty First Century L.P.I v. LaBianca

This case involves Twenty First Century L.P.I and Twenty First Century L.P.II, owners of McDonald's franchises, suing several defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and RICO violations. The defendants, including former employees Michael Malpiedi and Richard Redzinski, engaged in a scheme to embezzle millions by submitting inflated invoices for construction work and receiving kickbacks. The court granted partial summary judgment, finding all listed defendants liable for common law fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Malpiedi and Redzinski were also found liable for breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, Malpiedi, Redzinski, Stephen Delli Bovi, and Delli Bovi Construction Corporation were held liable for civil RICO damages. However, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding Angelo Vignola's and D & D Electric's RICO liability was denied, leaving that issue for trial.

FraudEmbezzlementKickbacksRICOBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelMail FraudWire FraudInterstate Commerce
References
24
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03339 [205 AD3d 565]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Tavarez v. LIC Dev. Owner, L.P.

Plaintiff Ruth Tavarez sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while employed by Collins Building Services, Inc. She alleged negligence and Labor Law violations against LIC Development Owner, L.P. LIC then filed a third-party action against Collins for indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Collins' motion to dismiss LIC's third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the indemnification provision did not apply to LIC and that common-law indemnification was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff's injuries did not constitute a 'grave injury'.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Labor Law ViolationsThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewGrave InjuryContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04702 [219 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

47 E. 34th St. (NY) L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.

In 47 E. 34th St. (NY) L.P. v BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc., the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, 47 East 34th Street (NY) L.P. The plaintiff had sought to hold Versa Capital Management, LLC, and Domus BWW Funding, LLC liable as successors or alter egos of BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc. (BWW) on a lease guaranty. The Appellate Division found that the lower court erred by relying on a mistaken belief of a 'limited factual issue' and misinterpreting previous admissions. It concluded that documentary evidence disproved successor and alter ego liability, as BWW's assets were transferred to nonparties, not to Versa or Domus Funding. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to Versa Capital Management, LLC, and Domus BWW Funding, LLC, dismissing all claims against them.

Successor LiabilityAlter EgoFraudulent ConveyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCorporate DominationLoan ForeclosureForbearance AgreementVeil PiercingPersonal Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00383
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2020

U-Trend N.Y. Inv. L.P. v. US Suite LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a judgment awarding mortgage damages to U-Trend New York Investment L.P. against US Suite LLC and Aura Investments Ltd. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's judgment by reducing the principal amount of mortgage damages awarded to U-Trend, stating that interest should be calculated at 13.5% instead of 20%. The court affirmed the judgment in other respects, including the limitation of Aura's liability for looting damages and the denial of sale damages and attorneys' fees. An appeal from a separate order denying Aura's motion to correct or vacate the judgment was dismissed as academic. The court addressed various arguments from Aura regarding liability, causation, and damages calculations, ultimately upholding liability for breach of contract but adjusting the damages amount based on the proper interest rate.

Mortgage DamagesBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyLooting DamagesInterest Rate CalculationAppellate ReviewBusiness Judgment RuleJudicial AdmissionsDerivative ClaimsAttorneys' Fees
References
20
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00596
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2016

Madison Realty Capital, L.P. v. Scarborough-St. James Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Madison Realty Capital, L.P. against Scarborough-St. James Corporation and others. The Supreme Court, New York County, had previously confirmed the award of $720,204.80 to the plaintiffs, denying the defendants' cross-motion to vacate or modify it. The arbitration award established Madison as the landlord of a shopping center, with annual rent payable to Madison instead of being used for a wraparound mortgage. The court found no basis to overturn the arbitrator's decision, stating it was not a 'totally irrational construction' of the contract and that the arbitrator did not exceed authority. Challenges to rent calculation were deemed unavailing, and a nonparty's intervention was denied due to lack of standing.

Arbitration AwardContract DisputeLandlord-TenantRent CalculationAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewStandingCPLR 7511Pro SeWraparound Mortgage
References
5
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. 2025 NYSlipOp 07224
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

Keenan v. Bloomberg L.P.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order denying defendant Bloomberg L.P.'s motion to dismiss plaintiff Susan Keenan's complaint. The court rejected the untimeliness argument, stating that the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory acts could constitute a continuing pattern of unlawful conduct. Plaintiff successfully stated causes of action for employment discrimination based on gender and age, hostile work environment, retaliation, and violations of the New York State and New York City Human Rights laws. Additionally, claims under New York's Equal Pay Act and for disparate impact, regarding a discriminatory evaluation system and pay disparity, were found sufficiently pleaded.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationAge DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationEqual Pay ActDisparate ImpactHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2002

Andino v. BFC Partners, L.P.

The plaintiff, an employee of Holy Land Iron Works Corporation, sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold while installing window guards at a property owned by BFC Partners, L.P. and BFC Corp. The plaintiff sought summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was initially denied by the Supreme Court, Kings County, due to perceived factual disputes regarding proximate cause. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices, constituting a violation of the Labor Law. The court also rejected the defendants' recalcitrant worker defense, concluding that the plaintiff's use of the scaffold was foreseeable and within the scope of employment. Consequently, summary judgment on liability was granted to the plaintiff.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyWorker FallWorkplace AccidentNondelegable Duty
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,605 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