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 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01444 [225 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2024

Jesmain v. Time Cap Dev. Corp.

Plaintiff Connor B. Jesmain was injured at a construction site on property owned by 980 James Street, LLC, while moving a stack of drywall panels that fell on his ankle. He commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Time Cap Development Corp. and 980 James Street, LLC (980 James defendants), and Interior Builders Framing and Drywall LLC. The 980 James defendants also sought contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Syracuse Energy Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action due to issues of fact regarding safe storage and a dangerous material pile. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against 980 James, denied contractual indemnification for 980 James defendants against Syracuse Energy, and granted summary judgment dismissing 980 James defendants' cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Interior Builders. The decision affirmed the denial of Interior Builders' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and other cross-claims.

Construction Site InjuryDrywall AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cap Makers' Union, Local 2H Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union ex rel. Alvarez v. Feinstein

The case involves an action brought by Cap Makers Union, Local 2H, against former officers Michael Feinstein and Luz Rivera, seeking to prevent them from using a similar name for a rival union. Initially filed in New York State court based on state business law and common law, the defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting a federal question under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. The federal district court, presided over by Judge Sweet, sua sponte remanded the action back to state court. The court found that federal jurisdiction was lacking because the plaintiff's complaint did not establish a federal cause of action, and federal preemption, raised as a defense, is insufficient for removal. The court also denied Local 2H's request for costs and Rule 11 sanctions against the defendants for improper removal.

Federal jurisdictionRemoval actionRemandState law claimsFederal questionNational Labor Relations ActPreemption defenseTrade name disputeUnion disputeCosts and sanctions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Case No. ADJ2630857 (SBR 0297019) ADJ3812701 (SBR 0297018)
Regular
Mar 09, 2012

Jack S. Vogel, Jr. vs. Remedy Intelligent Staffing, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, White Cap Industries, Inc., AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition for reconsideration, finding White Cap Industries to be the applicant's special employer. The Board determined that White Cap's insurance policy with American Casualty Company covered special employees and constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code section 1063.1. Consequently, CIGA is relieved of liability for the applicant's workers' compensation benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

CIGASpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentOther InsuranceJoint and Several LiabilityInsurance Code Section 1063.1Employers' Liability CoverageWorkers' Compensation CoverageLachesPrejudice
References
21
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00638
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2015

Williamson v. Ogden Cap Properties, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of a defective mailbox panel, as they never inspected it. Their alleged lack of a key was not determinative, as a cursory inspection might have revealed the defect. The court also found that defendants failed to demonstrate their negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Ultimately, plaintiff's testimony and a witness statement created an issue of fact regarding the defect's duration and discoverability, necessitating a trial.

Summary JudgmentConstructive NoticePremises LiabilityMailbox Panel DefectAppellate ReviewProximate CauseIssue of FactNegligencePostal Worker AccidentProperty Maintenance
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00638 [124 AD3d 537]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2015

Williamson v. Ogden Cap Props., LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case. The plaintiff, a postal worker, alleged injury from a defective mailbox panel. Defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice because they never inspected the panel prior to the accident, even lacking a key. The court found issues of fact regarding whether defendants exercised reasonable care in maintaining the mailbox and if constructive notice could be imputed. Additionally, there was an issue of fact concerning whether defendants' negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, supported by plaintiff's and a witness's testimony regarding the defect's duration.

Mailbox defectConstructive noticeSummary judgmentPremises liabilityPostal worker injuryAppellate reviewProperty maintenanceNegligenceProximate causeIssue of fact
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00369
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Matter of Bain v. New Caps, LLC

Claimant David Bain suffered a work-related neck and back injury. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which established claimant's average weekly wage using the 200 multiplier set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3). The Board found that the claimant had worked for the employer for only 16 days in the preceding 52-week period and that there was an absence of proof that the claimant was not fully available for employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the use of the 200 multiplier was supported by substantial evidence given the lack of evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited his availability for work.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationWorkers' Compensation Law § 14200 Multiplier MethodPart-time EmploymentClaimant AvailabilityWork-Related InjuryAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationEarnings Calculation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the New York City Board of Health’s Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule, commonly known as the "Soda Ban." The rule prohibited certain food service establishments from serving sugary drinks in sizes larger than 16 ounces. Petitioners, various interest groups, argued that the Board of Health exceeded its lawfully delegated authority and violated the principle of separation of powers. Both the Supreme Court and this appellate court agreed, declaring the regulation invalid. The court applied the four-factor test from Boreali v Axelrod, concluding that the Board improperly engaged in legislative policymaking rather than interstitial rulemaking, balancing competing concerns, acting without legislative guidance, addressing an area of legislative failure, and without requiring special expertise.

ConstitutionalitySeparation of PowersAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityPublic HealthSugary DrinksSoda BanLegislative AuthorityUltra ViresArticle 78 Proceeding
References
23
Case No. AHM 0067407
Regular
Jul 21, 2008

ALBERT ASTORGA vs. ARIZONA PIPELINE, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board found that despite a prior finding of total rehabilitation, Labor Code Section 4664(c)(1) mandates applying a lifetime cap for spine injuries. Therefore, a prior 17% permanent disability award from 1984 must be subtracted from the applicant's current 100% permanent disability finding. The applicant is ultimately awarded 83% permanent disability, with the case returned for calculation of the indemnity award and attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 4664permanent disabilityapportionmentSanchez v. County of Los AngelesrehabilitationSB 899lifetime capspine regionBrodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 174 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