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. 2022 NY Slip Op 07284 [212 AD3d 78]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Bryant v. Gulnick

Plaintiff Carla F. Bryant was injured in a vehicle accident involving Barbara A. Hyde, a volunteer for Jewish Family Services of Ulster County, Inc. (JFS). Bryant, also a County employee, had previously sought workers' compensation benefits, and a 2019 order determined she and Hyde were coemployees, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. Bryant sued Hyde's estate and JFS, alleging Hyde's negligence and JFS's vicarious liability. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim against Hyde's estate based on collateral estoppel from the 2019 order but denied JFS's motion to dismiss and instead granted partial summary judgment to Bryant against JFS. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed, finding that collateral estoppel applied to the coemployee issue, thus barring Bryant's derivative action against JFS. Consequently, the court granted JFS's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint against it, and denied Bryant's motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Collateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation LawVicarious LiabilityCoemployee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAutomobile AccidentNegligenceAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentUlster County
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08467 [156 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Torres v. Love Lane Mews, LLC

In this appellate case, Hilarion Torres, a construction worker, was allegedly injured by falling bricks at a construction site involving Love Lane Mews, LLC and Red Hook Construction Group-I, LLC. The Supreme Court initially denied Torres's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, dismissed Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Red Hook, and dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. It also granted Love Lane's motion for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Galaxy General Contracting Corp. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Red Hook due to unresolved factual issues regarding Red Hook's control over the injury-producing work. All other aspects of the Supreme Court's decision were affirmed.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectsLabor LawSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityAppellate Division First DepartmentBronx County Supreme CourtDemolition WorkWorkplace Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bryant v. General Electric Company

Plaintiff, Elton L. Bryant, a pipe fitter/welder, was injured while working in an unnamed defendant's facility, attempting to free a frozen valve. He sustained a herniated disc, allegedly due to working in a strained position on a narrow beam 20-30 feet in the air without adequate safety devices. Bryant sued the defendant for negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiff partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (2). On appeal, the court reversed this decision, holding that the injury was not an elevation-related risk as contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1) and (2). Consequently, the plaintiffs' claims under these sections were dismissed, while acknowledging a factual question remained for claims under Labor Law § 241 (6).

Workplace InjuryLabor LawElevation-Related RiskSummary Judgment AppealAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationHerniated DiscPipe FitterConstruction AccidentNegligence Claim
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bryant v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This consolidated case addresses the interpretation of New York's structured judgment statutes (CPLR articles 50-A and 50-B) in two personal injury and wrongful death actions. The court ruled that annual payments for future damages should be based on their undiscounted future value. It also determined that the 4% statutory additur must be included when calculating attorneys' fees. Furthermore, the court held that Social Security survivor benefits should offset a plaintiff's recovery for future lost earnings, remitting the Bryant case for a factual determination on this issue. The decision aims to ensure full compensation for plaintiffs while moderating costs for defendants.

Structured JudgmentPeriodic PaymentsPersonal InjuryMedical MalpracticeWrongful DeathFuture DamagesPresent ValueAnnuity ContractAttorneys' FeesCollateral Source Rule
References
20
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00839
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Mena (Philips Bryant Park LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Giovanni Mena applied for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing to work as a doorman/bottle host for Philips Bryant Park LLC. The Department of Labor initially determined he was an employee and Philips was liable for contributions. After a series of appeals and remittals, including Philips' initial default, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially overruled the Department's finding. However, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately upheld the ALJ's later decision, which sustained the Department's initial determination of an employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the employment relationship based on factors such as Philips setting claimant's schedule and rate of pay, requiring him to punch a time clock, and controlling aspects of his work. The Board's finding that the employment relationship applied to similarly situated individuals was also affirmed.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentControl TestAdministrative Law JudgeUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardParty Promoters
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bryant v. Verizon Communications Inc.

Plaintiff Barbara Bryant sued her former employer, Verizon Communications, and her national and local labor unions, the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and CWA Local 1103, alleging race and gender discrimination. Bryant claimed discriminatory discharge and working conditions by Verizon, and violations of the duty of fair representation (DFR) and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL) by the unions. The court found Bryant's DFR claims against the unions were time-barred. Summary judgment was granted to the unions on the HRL claims, as no evidence of DFR breach or discriminatory motivation was presented. For Verizon, summary judgment was also granted, as Bryant failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination or retaliation due to unsatisfactory job performance and lack of protected activity, and her hostile work environment and discriminatory assignment claims lacked evidence of objective severity or discriminatory cause.

Race DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSummary JudgmentDuty of Fair Representation (DFR)Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA)New York State Human Rights Law (HRL)Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Time-Barred ClaimsPreemptionWork Time Violations
References
68
Case No. ADJ3525697 (LAO 0534774) ADJ2342373 (LAO 0512482) ADJ1310306 (LAO 0568035) ADJ2645702 (LAO 0519888) ADJ1384751 (LAO 0568036) ADJ2871875 (ANA 0235799)
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

ALICE BRYANT vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERITY OF CALIFORNIA, permissibly self-insured, UCLA MEDICAL CENTER; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves applicant Alice Bryant's petition for reconsideration of prior dismissed workers' compensation claims and a Labor Code section 132a retaliation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's findings. The WCAB concluded that Bryant's claims were previously dismissed, with some dismissed by her own request and others for failure to prosecute. Furthermore, the WCAB found that Bryant failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud and lacked the required diligence to reopen these final dismissals, even with newly discovered evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRegents of the University of CaliforniaSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 132aRetaliation claimExtrinsic fraudDismissed claims
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1996

Bryant v. Speckard

Allen Bryant, a New York prisoner, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1983 first-degree rape conviction. He argued that the prosecutor racially discriminated during jury selection by using a peremptory challenge to excuse the only black prospective juror. Although state courts remitted the case for a reconstruction hearing, the federal court found this hearing inadequate due to the nearly seven-year delay, lack of a stenographic record, and the original trial judge's retirement. The prosecutor's subjective and partially race-conscious explanation for the strike, coupled with his limited recollection, rendered the findings unreliable. The court concluded that Bryant did not receive a full, fair, and adequate hearing on his Batson claim and granted the writ, ordering a new trial or release from confinement.

Batson ChallengePeremptory ChallengeRacial DiscriminationJury SelectionReconstruction HearingHabeas CorpusEqual ProtectionCredibility AssessmentDemeanor EvidenceState Court Remedies Exhaustion
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Lane

This case involves a mother's appeal against a Family Court order concerning visitation rights with her son. The Family Court had denied the mother unsupervised visitation and imposed conditions for future modification, stemming from a prior incident where the mother absconded with the son during an unsupervised visit. The appellate court affirmed the denial of unsupervised visitation, finding ample basis in the mother's past conduct and evasive testimony. However, the court deemed it improper to condition the mother's ability to seek modification on engaging in psychotherapy and a mental status evaluation. Although there was an error in admitting uncorroborated statements from the son's half-sister, this was found to be harmless given the substantial evidence supporting the supervised visitation order. The decision ultimately upholds the core finding of supervised visitation while correcting the procedural imposition of conditions.

child custodysupervised visitationparental rightsappellate reviewfamily courtmental health evaluationevidentiary errorharmless errorneglect proceedingconditions for modification
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Astrue

Plaintiff Teresa Lane sought supplemental security income benefits, claiming disability due to numerous ailments including arthritis, asthma, COPD, and fibromyalgia. The Commissioner of Social Security denied her application. This Court, presided over by District Judge Charles J. Siragusa, reviewed the final determination. The Court found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred in applying the treating physician rule, failing to obtain evidence from a vocational expert, and evaluating Plaintiff’s credibility. Specifically, the ALJ's assessment of Plaintiff's residual functional capacity for sedentary work was inconsistent with medical opinions. Consequently, the Court denied the Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted Plaintiff’s cross-motion, and remanded the case solely for the calculation of benefits.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeALJ errorTreating physician ruleVocational expertCredibility assessmentSedentary workRFC assessmentNon-exertional limitations
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 92 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