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 06475 [210 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Kreutzberg v. Law Offs. of John Riconda, P.C.

The plaintiff, Thomas Kreutzberg, commenced an action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the Law Offices of John Riconda, P.C. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to obtain the required consent from his workers' compensation carrier for the settlement of a no-fault and personal injury claim in 2009, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred under CPLR 3211 (a) (5). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the motion, ruling that the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice accrued in 2009 and had expired by the time the action was commenced in 2020. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants successfully established the action was time-barred and the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact in opposition.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 3211 (a) (5)Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Appellate DivisionSuffolk CountyTime-barred claimConsent RequirementNo-fault claim settlementPersonal injury action settlement
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01728
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2019

O'Dwyer v. Law Offs. of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC

This case involves a fee-sharing dispute between Ginarte, O'Dwyer, Gonzalez, Gallardo & Winograd, L.L.P. (plaintiff) and The Law Offices of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC (defendant) concerning Workers' Compensation cases. The plaintiff moved to compel discovery, and the defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court initially denied both motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order by granting the plaintiff's discovery motion, allowing access to the Workers' Compensation Board's eCase system for referred cases. The court affirmed the denial of partial summary judgment for the defendants, noting that the breach of contract claim could not be resolved as a matter of law due to evidence of the plaintiff's firm's participation. An appeal and cross-appeal from a subsequent order denying reargument were dismissed as nonappealable.

Fee-sharing agreementBreach of contractRules of Professional ConductDiscovery disputeWorkers' Compensation casesAppellate reviewSummary judgmentAttorney responsibilityE-discoveryLegal ethics
References
3
Case No. ADJ7836773
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

Francisco Flores vs. Superior Carpet Works, Inc., Preferred Employers

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a sanctions order against the Law Offices of John A. Mendoza. The Appeals Board is also notifying the law firm of its intention to impose additional sanctions. This is due to alleged misrepresentations of fact in the petition for reconsideration and violations of Appeals Board rules regarding attaching previously filed documents. The law firm is granted twenty days to show cause why these additional sanctions should not be imposed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANCTIONSRECONSIDERATIONDEPOSITION ATTORNEY FEESLABOR CODE SECTION 5710LABOR CODE SECTION 5813APPEALS BOARD RULESDUE PROCESSMISREPRESENTATIONSFAILURE TO RESPOND
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
Case No. CA 15-01567
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2016

ST. JOHN, KATHLEEN v. WESTWOOD-SQUIBB PHARMACEUTICALS, IN

Plaintiff Kathleen St. John initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained while preparing lighting equipment in a parking lot owned by the defendant, Westwood-Squibb Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The plaintiff alleged the accident occurred due to debris, leading to a trip or slip. Defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by partially granting the defendant's motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action premised on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), (e) (1), and (e) (2), finding these regulations inapplicable to the case facts. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b) and the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved issues of control and constructive notice.

Labor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction SiteDangerous ConditionOut-of-Possession OwnerCollateral EstoppelAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
24
Case No. 154970/19 | Appeal No. 5599 | Case No. 2024-06451
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Russell v. Lenox Hill Hosp.

Plaintiff James Russell, an employee of a delivery service, sustained injuries while unloading a blood irradiator machine at Lenox Hill Hospital, falling off a truck after the machine rolled towards him. The Supreme Court had denied Lenox Hill Hospital's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200 claims and common-law negligence, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, and denied Rad Source Technologies' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed these decisions, dismissing both the complaint against Lenox Hill Hospital and the third-party complaint. The court ruled that plaintiff was not a covered worker under Labor Law § 240(1) as the electrical work was unrelated to his activity and completed before delivery. Furthermore, Lenox Hill Hospital did not supervise or control plaintiff's work, negating Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence liability. The third-party complaint was also dismissed, as Rad Source cannot be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, and delivery work is not considered inherently dangerous.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentIndependent ContractorDelivery ServicesPremises LiabilityLoading Dock InjuryUnloading Equipment
References
7
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07291
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2025

Kelly v. RBSL Realty, LLC

Plaintiff John Kelly sustained injuries while working at a construction site in Medford in August 2014 when an 800-1,000-pound cement light pole base, being lowered by a crane, suddenly moved and struck him. He commenced an action against RBSL Realty, LLC, Landtek Group, Inc., Williams Scotsman, Inc. (the RBSL defendants), and John E. Potente & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment motions by all defendants. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment to the RBSL defendants on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding they did not supervise or control the work. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for all defendants on the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims, and for John E. Potente & Sons, Inc. on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawElevation-Related HazardSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityCrane OperationsIndustrial Code Violations
References
18
Case No. ADJ7192006
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

GENE GOODREAU vs. LAW OFFICES OF MARC ELLIOTT GROSSMAN, THE HARTFORD

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, Law Offices of Marc Elliott Grossman and The Hartford, regarding a prior Findings and Award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This reconsideration is necessary to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the record and facilitate a just decision. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the WCAB Commissioners' office in San Francisco, not with any district office or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCABLos Angeles District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Green Hills (USA), L.L.C. v. Aaron Streit, Inc.

Green Hills, LLC brought an action against Aaron Streit, Inc. and Certified Environments, Inc. for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and New York Navigation Law, along with other common law provisions. The dispute arose after Green Hills purchased a property from Streit's, which was previously inspected by CEI, and subsequently discovered leaked heating oil from underground storage tanks. Green Hills alleges that Streit's misrepresented the property's environmental condition and CEI failed to detect the hazards. Defendants moved to dismiss various counts of the complaint, with Streit's arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under RCRA, and CEI arguing the economic loss rule bars certain state-law claims. The court denied both defendants' motions to dismiss, finding sufficient allegations for an RCRA claim and exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against CEI. The court also granted Green Hills' cross-motion to amend its complaint.

RCRAEnvironmental LawHazardous WasteUnderground Storage TanksContaminationNew York Navigation LawMotions to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFailure to State a ClaimSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 1977

In re Jacqueline E.

This proceeding, initiated by the Commissioner of Social Services, sought a 12-month extension of placement for Jacqueline E., aimed at a trial discharge to her natural mother, Martha Q. The Law Guardian concurrently requested an extension and termination of parental rights for adoption by the foster parents, John and Hazel F. The court acknowledged Jacqueline's desire to remain with her foster parents, as expressed in a psychiatric evaluation and in camera. However, citing the natural mother's rehabilitation and statutory preference for reuniting families, the court extended Jacqueline's placement with the Department of Social Services through December 6, 1978. This extension includes a supervised trial discharge to the natural mother, while denying the Law Guardian's request to terminate parental rights.

Child PlacementFamily ReunificationParental RightsFoster CareTrial DischargeBest Interest of the ChildLaw GuardianSocial Services LawFamily Court ActParental Fitness
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 16,722 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