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 08303
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2017

Prevost v. One City Block LLC

Plaintiff Ronald Prevost, a laborer, was injured after slipping on a loose sprinkler pipe at a construction site owned by One City Block LLC. He and his wife sued One City for common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. One City then commenced a third-party action against Island Fire Sprinkler, Inc., the subcontractor responsible for installing the sprinkler system, seeking contractual and common-law indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court denied various summary judgment motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting One City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and granting One City's claim for contractual indemnification by Island Fire. The court also denied Island Fire's motion for summary judgment dismissing One City's claim against it for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Finally, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of One City's motion for post-note-of-issue discovery seeking additional independent medical examinations of plaintiff.

Construction accidentLabor LawPremises liabilitySummary judgmentContractual indemnificationBreach of contractInsurance procurementPost-note-of-issue discoveryIndependent medical examinationAppellate procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fourth Branch Associates v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioners Joseph Harris and Fourth Branch Associates initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s issuance of a 'Notice of Complete Application and Determination of No Significance' and a '401 Water Quality Certificate' for a proposed hydroelectric project by ENERCO Corporation and Adirondack Hydro Development Corporation (AHDC). Petitioners contended that NYSDEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an environmental assessment form, an environmental impact statement, or public hearings. AHDC argued federal preemption by the Federal Power Act, limiting NYSDEC's review to water quality standards. NYSDEC also moved for remand, acknowledging a procedural error in not requiring an environmental assessment form but arguing against preemption. The court determined that the Federal Power Act preempts NYSDEC from conducting a full SEQRA environmental review, limiting its authority to assessing compliance with State water quality standards. Consequently, NYSDEC was found to lack authority to require SEQRA-mandated forms, statements, or hearings for the 401 water quality certification.

Environmental LawFederal PreemptionWater Quality CertificationHydroelectric ProjectsState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Federal Power ActCPLR Article 78 ProceedingState AuthorityEnvironmental ReviewRegulatory Control
References
56
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06248 [199 AD3d 1362]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2021

Branch v. 1908 W. Ridge Rd, LLC

Plaintiff Shawntrell Branch sought damages for injuries sustained during roof replacement work, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Monroe County, initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partially denied the defendants' cross-motion. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff's back injury, which occurred while lifting a metal structure a few inches, did not constitute an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The Court concluded that the injury arose from a routine workplace risk, not a pronounced risk due to elevation differentials, and consequently dismissed the amended complaint against the defendants-appellants.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardsSummary judgmentRoofing workBack injuryConstruction siteRoutine workplace riskGravityAppellate reviewDismissal of complaint
References
6
Case No. ANA 0373315
Regular
Jun 30, 2008

Julie Branch vs. HACHETTE FILIPACCHI MEDIA U.S., INC., dba ROAD AND TRACK, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a Labor Code §132a claim filed by Julie Branch against Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., Inc. Branch alleged discrimination in two waves: a changed attitude and loss of perks after an injury, and a subsequent layoff. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found the first wave barred by the statute of limitations and the second wave to be a business necessity. Therefore, the Board affirmed the denial of Branch's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code §132aPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of ReconsiderationDiscriminationIndustrial InjuryStatute of LimitationsBusiness NecessityAt-Will EmployeeWork Seniority
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Sweet

A claimant, formerly a sewage treatment worker for a municipality, left his job and moved to Hawaii after receiving a conditional job offer at a tropical fish farm and his girlfriend's relocation there. Upon arrival, he discovered the position was no longer available. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, determining he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant failed to verify the job offer before moving and had primarily relocated for personal reasons without definite employment.

Unemployment benefitsVoluntary quitGood cause for leavingJob availabilityRelocation for personal reasonsDisqualification for benefitsAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceMunicipality employmentHawaii job offer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Generali-U.S. Branch v. Genesis Insurance

Generali — U.S. Branch filed an action seeking $3.375 million in contribution from Genesis Insurance Co. and Genesis Underwriting Management Co. after settling an insurance claim for a fire loss. Generali argued Genesis was a co-insurer whose policy was effective despite cancellation attempts, while Genesis contended its policy was validly cancelled due to non-payment and that it received untimely notice. Both parties moved for summary judgment, presenting conflicting evidence on the agency relationship between Genesis and the brokers, premium payment, and the extent of actual prejudice from late notice. The court denied both motions, concluding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a judgment as a matter of law.

Insurance DisputeContribution ClaimCo-Insurer LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAgency RelationshipPolicy CancellationPremium PaymentTimely NoticeActual PrejudiceRes Judicata
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West Branch Conservation Ass'n v. Planning Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding sought to review a negative declaration and preliminary subdivision approval by the Planning Board of the Town of Clarkstown. The Supreme Court's initial dismissal was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found the Planning Board's determination irrational and in violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Board had issued a negative declaration despite acknowledging potential significant environmental impacts from the proposed residential development on High Tor Mountain. The court concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required, annulling the Board's determination and remitting the matter for EIS preparation. The court also clarified standing, affirming Marcus Ratliff's standing while noting the West Branch Conservation Association, Inc. lacked it.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementSubdivision ApprovalLand Use PlanningPlanning BoardJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingStanding
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citik Ka Wah Bank Ltd. New York Branch v. Wong (In Re Wong)

The case concerns an adversary proceeding initiated by CITIC Ka Wah Bank Limited New York Branch against Debtor Virginia Wong, seeking to declare her guaranty of certain debts nondischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtor moved to dismiss the Bank's complaint. The court, presided over by Judge Burton R. Lifland, granted the motion to dismiss for the first, second, fourth, and sixth claims for relief, finding deficiencies in pleading under Bankruptcy Code sections 523(a)(2), 523(a)(4) (for fiduciary duty), 727(a)(2), and 727(a)(7). However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the third claim for relief, concluding that the Bank adequately pleaded a claim for willful and malicious injury under Section 523(a)(6) regarding the diversion of CEI assets.

BankruptcyNondischargeabilityFraudulent MisrepresentationEmbezzlementWillful and Malicious InjuryMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(2)Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(4)Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(6)
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2006

Claim of Atkinson v. Joseph Baldwin Construction

This is an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed March 29, 2006, and May 9, 2006, which clarified an earlier Board decision from April 23, 2002. The claimant sustained a compensable right shoulder injury in July 1998. Subsequently, the claimant alleged problems with his left shoulder were causally related to the 1998 accident. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found no causal relationship for the left shoulder injury, a determination affirmed by the Board in April 2002, although the Board's decision ambiguously mentioned developing the schedule of loss of use for 'both arms.' Following further proceedings, the WCLJ reiterated the disallowance of the left arm claim. The Board then clarified its 2002 decision in 2006, stating that it had affirmed the finding of no causal relationship for the left arm and that only the right arm's schedule loss of use was to be developed. The Appellate Division found that the Board's 2006 decisions effectively amended its 2002 decision. Upon review, the court affirmed the Board’s determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion of no causal relationship for the left arm, giving deference to the Board's credibility assessments and resolution of conflicting medical evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the issue of a consequential left shoulder injury remained open, as the Board's prior decision had disallowed any causally related left arm condition.

Workers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipLeft Shoulder InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryMedical EvidenceCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewBoard ClarificationAmended DecisionSchedule Loss of Use
References
6
Case No. 534614
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Joseph Marcellino

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning claimant Joseph Marcellino's eligibility for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for permanent injuries to his left elbow and left thumb. Following an April 2015 accident, Marcellino had established claims for multiple injuries, undergoing surgery in 2016. Conflicting medical opinions arose between his treating orthopedic surgeon, Dimitro Christoforou, who assessed significant SLU percentages, and the carrier's orthopedic surgeon, Peter Spohn, who found minimal or no SLU for the left hand, wrist, and thumb. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) credited Spohn's opinion, awarding 15% SLU for the left wrist but no permanency for the left elbow or left thumb. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that the Board has the discretion to resolve conflicting medical opinions and reject medical evidence even without opposing proof, finding their determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceConflicting Medical OpinionsCredibility AssessmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardOrthopedic InjuriesElbow Injury
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,144 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