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
Mar 21, 1995

Lewis v. Summit Office Supply, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Manhattan Transfer, Inc., was injured by a forklift operated by defendant Vincent Carbone, an employee of Summit Office Supply, Inc. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against the defendants. The defendants asserted an affirmative defense, arguing that workers' compensation was the plaintiff's sole remedy. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, finding that Vincent Carbone was a special employee of Manhattan Transfer, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Vincent Carbone was a coemployee of the plaintiff, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6].

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityAffirmative DefenseAppellate Court DecisionForklift AccidentEmployment Relationship
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04734 [197 AD3d 684]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2021

Westchester County Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. County of Westchester

The Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc., and individual correction officers sued the County of Westchester for breach of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). They sought damages, claiming entitlement to disability retirement benefits equivalent to those under the Workers' Compensation Law for loss of earning capacity. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the CBA was silent on such awards. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the CBA did not contain a provision for the claimed retirement benefits, thus the complaint failed to state a cause of action and the proposed amendment lacked merit.

Breach of ContractCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability BenefitsGeneral Municipal LawCPLR ProcedureMotion to DismissLeave to AmendAppellate ReviewRetirement BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law Benefits
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09251
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

Cioffi v. S.M. Foods, Inc.

This case involves an appeal regarding a personal injury action stemming from a police officer, Frederick M. Cioffi, being struck by a tractor-trailer operated by Daniel Burke during a traffic stop. The plaintiffs, Cioffi and his wife, alleged negligence and violations of General Municipal Law § 205-e against multiple defendants. The appellate court reviewed several aspects, including summary judgment on Burke's liability, vicarious liability claims against Russell McCall's, Inc. and Doug Jay, and the application of the Graves Amendment to Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. and PLM Trailer Leasing. Additionally, the court examined whether the injured plaintiff suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and the standard of care applicable to Officer Pinto's vehicle parking during a non-emergency operation. The court modified the lower court's order by granting plaintiffs' summary judgment on Burke's liability, denying dismissal of a cause of action against Russell McCall's Inc., and dismissing part of the third-party complaint regarding Pinto's parking.

Police Officer InjuryTraffic AccidentVehicle NegligenceVicarious LiabilityGraves AmendmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryEmergency VehicleSummary JudgmentComparative Fault
References
53
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfe v. KLR Mechanical, Inc.

Plaintiff Malcolm Wolfe, a millwright employed by DLX Inc., was injured when he slipped on a threaded rod while working at defendant Irving Tissue, Inc.'s paper mill. Wolfe and his wife filed an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against Irving Tissue, Inc., Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. (general contractor), and KLR Mechanical, Inc. (subcontractor). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims against all defendants and the other claims against Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. and KLR Mechanical, Inc. However, the court reversed the summary judgment granted to Irving Tissue, Inc. concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding that Irving retained control of the stairway and failed to establish a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The case was remitted for further proceedings against Irving Tissue, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentRoutine MaintenanceIndustrial CodeAppellate DivisionSpecial EmployeeConstructive NoticeDangerous Condition
References
21
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04356
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Curran v. JJML, Inc.

Plaintiff Edward Curran sued JJML, Inc., and related entities (JJML defendants) for injuries sustained from a slip and fall on an exterior deck at his employer's (Elmer W. Davis, Inc.) office space, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations due to accumulated moss or algae. The JJML defendants initiated a third-party action against Davis for indemnification. The Supreme Court largely denied summary judgment motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting the JJML defendants summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 claim, concluding Curran was not a protected worker, and on their contractual indemnification claim against Davis, finding it arose from Davis's business. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the negligence claim against JJML, citing factual disputes regarding constructive notice of the hazardous condition. The Davis defendants' appeal of the denials against them was also denied.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallMoss or AlgaeConstructive NoticeLabor Law § 200Statutory ProtectionContractual IndemnificationCommercial LeaseSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. CA 12-02386
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2013

PRICE TRUCKING CORP. v. AAA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Price Trucking Corp. (plaintiff-respondent) commenced an action alleging that First Niagara Bank, N.A. (defendant-appellant) violated Lien Law article 3-A by automatically transferring funds from AAA Environmental, Inc.'s operational account into its line of credit account, which Price Trucking claimed constituted a diversion of Lien Law trust assets. The Supreme Court granted Price Trucking's motion for partial summary judgment, finding First Niagara liable as a Lien Law statutory trustee and that it had both actual and constructive notice of the diversion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, denying Price Trucking's motion in its entirety. It concluded that First Niagara was not a statutory trustee under the facts and that the Supreme Court erred in applying a constructive notice standard, asserting that only actual notice is applicable to banks for the holder in due course defense under Lien Law § 72 (1).

Lien LawTrust AssetsHolder in Due CourseActual NoticeConstructive NoticeUniform Commercial CodeLender LiabilitySubcontractorsSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Sweet Associates, Inc.

A building inspector, employed by the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, sustained injuries after tripping over handrails in a dimly lit stairwell at a construction site. He subsequently initiated an action against the general contractor, Sweet Associates, Inc., and subcontractors Stone Bridge Iron & Steel, Inc., and Fast Trek Steel, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of the Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning the visibility of the hazard and the defendants' control over the work. However, the appellate court reversed the decision concerning the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, dismissing it on the grounds that the plaintiff, as an inspector for the owner, was not protected by that specific statute.

Building Inspector InjuryConstruction Site AccidentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary Judgment MotionSubcontractor LiabilityHazardous ConditionDuty to Control WorkScope of Labor Law Protection
References
16
Case No. ADJ13262420
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

JOSE MORALES vs. KENNETH C. RAY, COMPASS DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, INC., BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted defendant Kenneth C. Ray's petition for reconsideration of an Amended Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on July 15, 2025. The original F&A had found that applicant Jose Morales was employed by Kenneth C. Ray and sustained an industrial injury but was not employed by Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Board rescinded the F&A and substituted a new F&A, affirming Morales's employment by Kenneth C. Ray and not by BBSI. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings under a new WCJ to determine issues regarding employment with Compass Development and Construction Inc., the participation of the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund, and the specific body parts injured.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings and Awardarising out of and in the course of employmentemploymentliabilitythird-party administratorsubstantial evidencecausationdeposition testimony
References
18
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02032 [228 AD3d 20]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2024

Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. against Applied Underwriters, Inc. and its affiliates. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants marketed and sold an unlawful workers' compensation insurance program, EquityComp, in violation of New York Insurance Law. The defendants attempted to enforce a forum selection clause mandating litigation in Nebraska, but the court found this clause unenforceable. This decision was based on public policy, as the program violated New York law, and because Nebraska courts had previously deemed New York the more appropriate forum for such disputes. The ruling allows the plaintiff to pursue claims for declaratory relief, equitable rescission, common-law fraud, and violation of General Business Law § 349 in New York.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceForum Selection ClausePublic PolicyInsurance Law ViolationsEquitable RescissionCommon-Law FraudDeceptive PracticesGeneral Business Law § 349Unlawful Reinsurance AgreementRegulatory Oversight
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 21,431 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