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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 1994

Whirlpool Corp. v. Philips Electronics, N.V.

This case involves Whirlpool Corporation seeking to confirm a foreign arbitral award against Philips Electronics N.V., while Philips moved to dismiss or stay the action pending further arbitration. The dispute arose from a joint venture and subsequent acquisition of Philips' Argentine MDA operations by Whirlpool, specifically concerning the revaluation of fixed assets and the applicable accounting policies under their Reorganization and Purchase Agreement (RPA) and Amendment No. 1. An initial arbitration before Arthur Andersen & Co. ruled in favor of Whirlpool, determining that Schedule G of the RPA, which limited asset revaluation, applied despite Philips' arguments for a different "Schedule G (Argentina)." The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, affirmed Andersen's jurisdiction and the validity of its binding award. Consequently, Whirlpool's motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award was granted, and Philips' motion to dismiss or stay the action was denied.

Arbitral Award ConfirmationForeign ArbitrationContract DisputeAccounting PoliciesAsset ValuationJoint VentureCorporate AcquisitionFederal Arbitration ActDispute ResolutionJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
20
Case No. Index No. 500294/2018 Appeal No. 16497-16498-16499 Case No. 2022-00247, 2022-00958, 2022-01285, 2022-02741
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2023

Matter of Edgar V.L.

Alison L. initiated proceedings to appoint an Article 81 guardian for her incapacitated brother, Edgar V.L., alleging financial exploitation by Rachida Naciri, who later married Edgar and entered into a prenuptial agreement. Judy S. Mock was appointed temporary guardian and Gary Elias as counsel. Concerns arose when Mock and Elias failed to investigate the marriage and financial transactions. A special guardian, Lissett C. Ferreira, was subsequently appointed to investigate these matters. The Supreme Court removed Mock and discharged Elias due to conflicts of interest and dereliction of fiduciary duties, appointing successor guardian and counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed these orders, ruling that Alison L. had standing and that the court's actions regarding the appointments and removals were a proper exercise of discretion. The court also dismissed an appeal as moot.

Incapacitated personGuardianshipFinancial exploitationPrenuptial agreementFiduciary dutiesAttorney misconductSpecial guardianArticle 81Due processAppellate review
References
14
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06780 [121 AD3d 450]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2014

Arner v. RREEF America, L.L.C.

Plaintiff Andrew Arner initiated an action to recover for injuries sustained after allegedly tripping and falling on a Masonite board in a building undergoing construction. The building owners and managers, RREEF America, L.L.C., et al., filed a third-party complaint against several contractors, seeking contractual and common law indemnification, contribution, and alleging failure to procure insurance. Third-party defendants Coda Interiors and Adelphi Restoration Corp. moved for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting Adelphi's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance. The court found that Adelphi had procured the required insurance, and the remaining appeals were otherwise affirmed.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon Law IndemnificationContributionBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03321
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Jackson v. Hunter Roberts Constr., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Robert Jackson sustained personal injuries after tripping and falling on a plywood ramp at a construction site while working as a plumber. He brought claims against the owner, Hunter Roberts Construction, L.L.C., and the general contractor, Bronx Parking Development Company, L.L.C., under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying the defendants' motion and reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved triable issues of fact concerning constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactPlywood Ramp
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2024

People v. A.L.

This case involves the defendant, A.L., seeking to terminate her lifetime parole under New York's Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act (DVSJA) for the 1995 murder of her six-year-old daughter, E. A.L. was convicted of murder in the second degree after E. died from head injuries inflicted by A.L. The court acknowledges A.L. was a victim of substantial domestic violence by her partner, Carlos. However, the court ruled that this abuse was not a significant contributing factor to E.'s murder and that A.L.'s current sentence of lifetime parole was not unduly harsh. The decision highlights other contributing factors to A.L.'s criminal behavior, including severe substance abuse, childhood trauma, and a difficult personal relationship with the victim.

Domestic Violence Survivors Justice ActParole TerminationResentencing MotionChild HomicideDomestic Violence VictimSubstance Abuse DisorderTraumatic Brain InjuryCoercive ControlExpert Witness TestimonyJudicial Discretion
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.M. v. New York City Department of Education

This case involves parents (J.M. and N.M.) and their child (L.M.) seeking tuition reimbursement from the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for L.M.'s private school tuition at the Rebecca School for the 2011-12 school year. L.M., diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder and classified with Autism, was offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by the DOE, including an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and placement at the Hungerford School. The parents rejected the placement and unilaterally re-enrolled L.M. privately. The court, deferring to the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision over the Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, found that the IEP's procedural deficiencies regarding the transition plan did not deprive L.M. of a FAPE when the IEP was viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court determined that the parents' objections to the Hungerford School (size, noise, socialization concerns) were impermissibly speculative and did not demonstrate that Hungerford could not implement the IEP. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the DOE had offered L.M. a FAPE.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)Individualized Education Program (IEP)Tuition ReimbursementSpecial EducationAdministrative ReviewSummary JudgmentProcedural DeficienciesPlacement ChallengesAuditory Sensitivities
References
43
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L & L Associates Holding Corp. v. Charity United Baptist Church

Petitioner L & L Associates Holding Corp. initiated a nonpayment eviction proceeding against Charity United Baptist Church for alleged rent arrears. The court, presided over by Judge Michael A. Ciaffa, examined the sufficiency of service of process. The petitioner attempted service by affixing the petition to the church door and mailing it to the church's address. The court ruled that this method was legally insufficient, stating that an unincorporated church, treated as an unincorporated association under New York law, must be sued by naming and serving a representative natural person, such as its president or treasurer, to establish jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed without prejudice due to improper service and a separate jurisdictional defect concerning the proof of rent demand.

EvictionNonpaymentUnincorporated AssociationService of ProcessReligious Corporations LawGeneral Associations LawRPAPL 735Jurisdictional DefectActual NoticeDue Process
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 20,668 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