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. 2017 NY Slip Op 00963 [147 AD3d 823]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Levy v. Baumgarten

Yehonatan Levy and his wife appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to Levi Baumgarten, dismissing their personal injury complaint. The injury occurred when Levy, a worker on Baumgarten's home renovation, had a saw blade embed in his hand. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6), but the Supreme Court applied the homeowner's exemption and found no supervision or control by Baumgarten. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that incidental commercial use of the home did not forfeit the homeowner's exemption and Baumgarten's actions did not constitute direction or control over the work. Consequently, the summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law claims was upheld.

Personal InjuryHomeowner's ExemptionLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryDirection and ControlCommercial Use Incidental to Residence
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03865 [172 AD3d 1674]
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2019

Matter of Levy v. New York State Educ. Dept.

Petitioner Allen Steven Levy sought a New York license as a psychoanalyst, which was denied by the Education Department based on a lack of good moral character. This determination stemmed from Levy's two prior grand larceny convictions in 2003 and 2005, involving false billings as a social worker. The Hearing Panel and Committee on the Professions upheld the denial, citing a direct relationship between the convictions and the work of a psychoanalyst, and the unreasonable risk posed to public safety. Levy initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Education Department's findings, concluding that the denial was supported by substantial evidence, including Levy's perceived lack of candor and insufficient efforts toward rehabilitation.

License DenialProfessional MisconductMoral CharacterPsychoanalyst LicensureGrand LarcenyFalse BillingCPLR Article 78Education Department DecisionAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2018

Popat v. Levy

Plaintiff Saurin Popat, M.D., a doctor of African and Southeast Asian origin, filed a lawsuit alleging race and national origin discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, § 1983, and the NYSHRL, along with tortious interference claims. The defendants include Elad Levy, M.D., The State University of New York at Buffalo, University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Kaleida Health, and University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, Inc. The plaintiff alleges Dr. Levy, who held multiple positions across these entities, created a hostile work environment through racially charged comments and retaliated against him by terminating his faculty position after a discrimination complaint. The court addressed motions to dismiss filed by the defendants. It found that UBNS and Kaleida could be considered 'joint employers' or acting 'under color of state law' for Title VII and § 1983 purposes, respectively, and that Dr. Levy could be liable under the NYSHRL as an aider and abettor. However, the University and the Medical School were granted dismissal of all claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and certain tortious interference claims against UBNS and Kaleida were also dismissed due to insufficient pleading of an actual breach or injury.

Employment DiscriminationRace & National Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsSection 1983 ClaimsNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Tortious Interference with ContractTortious Interference with Business Relations
References
146
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

Robinson v. Bond Street Levy, LLC

Peter Robinson, a laborer for Virginia Construction & Management, Inc., was injured on December 26, 2007, when he fell from a ladder after being struck by ductwork at a building owned by Bond Street Levy, LLC. He and his wife subsequently commenced an action against Bond Street Levy, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs successfully established the absence of adequate safety devices and that this violation was a proximate cause of the injuries. The defendant's arguments regarding a triable issue of fact on sole proximate cause and prematurity of the motion were rejected.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace AccidentLadder FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityProperty OwnerConstruction SiteNondelegable DutyProximate Cause
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. Levy

This is a declaratory judgment action brought by American Home Assurance Company, an insurer, against Richard Levy, an insured social worker, and Pamela Damian, a patient. American Home sought a declaration that its liability for claims of sexual misconduct against Levy would be limited to $25,000, as stipulated in Levy's professional liability policy, and that it could cease his defense after expending that amount. Damian, who had an underlying malpractice action against Levy, alleged negligence but not explicit sexual misconduct in her judicial complaint, though her NASW complaint did include such allegations. The court denied American Home's motion for summary judgment, concluding that while the sexual misconduct provision was unambiguous, enforceable, and did not violate public policy, the $25,000 sublimit could not be applied at that juncture because Damian had not yet formally alleged erotic physical contact in the judicial proceeding. The court indicated the sublimit would apply if such allegations were made in future pleadings or during trial.

Professional Liability InsuranceSocial Worker MalpracticeSexual Misconduct ExclusionDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic PolicyContract InterpretationInsurance Coverage DisputeTransference PhenomenonProfessional Ethics
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

This case addresses a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Daniel Levy against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and several individuals. Levy, a Forester 1 with diabetes, hearing loss, and a learning disability, alleged his employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliated against him. The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were untimely, accommodations were met, or that their actions were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The Court granted the Defendants' motion, ruling that claims prior to June 4, 2013, were time-barred. Furthermore, the Court determined Levy failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions, particularly writing, even with requested accommodations, and found Defendants provided legitimate reasons for alleged retaliatory actions.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Section 504 Rehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Reasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentForester EmploymentDiabetesLearning Disability
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prentice v. Levy

Plaintiff sustained a work-related cervical spine injury in 1998 and underwent surgery by defendant Dr. Walter J. Levy in 1999. After the first surgery failed and a second surgery in 2002 to remove loosened hardware, plaintiff settled a medical malpractice action against Levy for $400,000. The self-insured employer, Tops, Inc., and its administrator, MAC Risk Management, as "the carrier," asserted a workers' compensation lien against the settlement. The Supreme Court provisionally set the lien at $22,442.91 and appointed a referee to determine the final lien and offset amounts, with the carrier bearing the costs. The appellate court affirmed the order, ruling that the interim lien was "without prejudice" and the referee's hearing scope was sufficient to conduct a comprehensive evidentiary hearing, thus causing no prejudice to the carrier.

Workers' Compensation LienMedical MalpracticeSettlement LienInterim LienWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewReferee AppointmentLien EstablishmentOffset PaymentsEvidentiary Hearing
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1980

Hospital Service Plan v. Warehouse Production & Sales Employees Union

The appellants, who are successors in interest to the original defendants, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The order denied their motion to compel the plaintiffs to execute a 'satisfaction piece' after the appellants paid the judgment with interest calculated at the New York rate. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that according to the principles of full faith and credit, the judgment from New Jersey required interest to be paid at the 8% New Jersey rate, not the 6% New York rate. Additionally, the appellants were deemed responsible for the Sheriff's levy costs because they failed to properly serve the Sheriff with a stay of execution, thereby necessitating the levy.

Judgment EnforcementFull Faith and CreditInterest RatesSheriff's LevySatisfaction PieceNew Jersey JudgmentNew York LawCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCourt Costs
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06850 [212 AD3d 126]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2022

Matter of Levi v. New York State Workers' Compensation Bd.

Petitioner, a licensed chiropractor, was removed from the list of authorized medical providers by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board after an investigation revealed he received unlawful payments from a durable medical equipment (DME) supplier, Elite Medical Supply of New York, LLC. This was deemed a violation of Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-d (2) (g), 13-l (10) (g) and 8 NYCRR 29.1 (b) (3). Petitioner challenged this removal via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting a statutory right to a hearing before the Chiropractic Practice Committee (CPC) prior to removal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed. The appellate court held that while Workers' Compensation Law § 13-l (10) outlines a CPC hearing process, the Chair of the Workers' Compensation Board also possesses independent authority under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 13-l (12) and 13-d (1) to investigate and remove a provider without a hearing when the underlying facts, such as petitioner's admitted receipt of unlawful payments, are undisputed and do not present questions of fact.

ChiropractorMedical ProviderAuthorization RemovalUnlawful PaymentsDurable Medical EquipmentWorkers' Compensation BoardProfessional MisconductDue ProcessAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bottone v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff Salvatore Bottone, Jr., an employee of General Electric, sustained injuries after falling on a debris-littered stairway during working hours on June 5, 1979. He and his wife subsequently sued the renovation contractors, Levi Case Company and New York Telephone Company. A jury found both defendants equally responsible, awarding damages to Bottone and his wife. The defendants appealed, contending the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that Bottone was contributorily negligent, and that the damages were excessive. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of defendant liability, lack of contributory negligence, and reasonable damages given the severity of Bottone's permanent and chronic injuries.

premises liabilitypersonal injurystairway fallconstruction site safetydebriscontractor liabilityemployer negligencecomparative negligenceproximate causeexcessive damages
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 69 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