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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05204
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2025

People v. Martin

David Martin was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the third degree after a jury trial. On appeal, Martin challenged his convictions, arguing violations of the Second Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and contesting the sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment. The court found that Martin lacked standing to assert facial and as-applied challenges to Penal Law § 265.03 (3), and his arguments failed on the merits. It also determined that the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen did not invalidate New York's entire licensing scheme or the permissive presumption under Penal Law § 265.15 (4). Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove intent to use a loaded firearm unlawfully under Penal Law § 265.03 (1) (b) and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The denial of Martin's CPL 30.30 motion was also deemed proper.

Criminal Possession of WeaponSecond DegreeAssault Third DegreeSecond Amendment ChallengeStandingAs-Applied ChallengeFacial ChallengePenal Law § 265.03Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of Evidence
References
17
Case No. ADJ101014 (AHM 0144142)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

MARTIN GOMEZ vs. DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an appeal by applicant Martin Gomez regarding his workers' compensation award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the original decision but amending specific findings. The primary amendment reduced the applicant's permanent disability from 23% to 22%, entitling him to 85.5 weeks of indemnity totaling $19,665.00. Additionally, the apportionment of low back disability and the reasonable value of applicant's attorney fees were clarified.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTDISABILITY INDEMNITYATTORNEY'S FEESFINDINGS OF FACTAWARDDIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES SERVICESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
References
0
Case No. CV-23-2140
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Zenia Martin

Claimant Zenia Martin appealed a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) decision denying her request for an extreme hardship redetermination. Martin, who sustained work injuries in 2010 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability, sought reclassification to a permanent total disability based on extreme financial hardship under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). Initially granted by a WCLJ, the WCB modified the decision, finding she failed to demonstrate extreme hardship. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that substantial evidence did not support the WCB's finding, as Martin's essential monthly expenses would significantly exceed her income upon the termination of her workers' compensation benefits, making her unable to cover basic necessities. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Extreme Hardship RedeterminationPermanent Total Disability ReclassificationFinancial HardshipWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate Division ReviewLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityIndemnity BenefitsSocial Security Disability IncomeAdoption SubsidyMonthly Expenses Deficit
References
12
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Matter of Martin (Trucking Support Servs., LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Anthony Martin, a truck driver, filed for unemployment insurance benefits. The Department of Labor determined he was an employee of Trucking Support Services, LLC (TSS) and Distribution Cooperative Network of NY (DCN) under the New York State Commercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play Act. TSS and DCN contested this, arguing Martin was an independent contractor. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the initial determinations, finding Martin to be an employee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that TSS and DCN failed to overcome the statutory presumption of employment and that the Fair Play Act was not preempted by federal law.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorCommercial Goods Transportation Industry Fair Play ActEmployee ClassificationLabor LawStatutory Presumption of EmploymentABC TestSeparate Business Entity TestFederal Aviation Administration Authorization ActPreemption
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gomez v. Pellicone

Plaintiff Isabel Gomez filed claims against individual defendants Robert W. Pellicone, John F. Sullivan, Stephen C. Lando, and the Eastchester Union Free School District, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Gomez claimed she faced retaliation and discrimination after refusing to alter a student's transcript and for her chronic tardiness. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment, finding individual defendants immune and plaintiff's claims against the District lacking sufficient admissible evidence. State law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1983First AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentEmployment LawPublic School
References
38
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06151
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2017

Berman-Rey v. Gomez

The plaintiff, Gerson Berman-Rey, was allegedly injured when a plywood fence at a construction site fell and hit him. He was employed as an assistant carpenter on a renovation project owned by the defendants, Sigifredo Gomez and Liliana Gomez. Berman-Rey commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to the defendants on the claims of common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240(1). The Appellate Division modified the order, denying summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding triable issues of fact regarding the defendants' creation of or notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, concluding that the falling fence was not an object being hoisted or requiring securing for the purpose of the undertaking.

Construction Site AccidentPlywood FenceSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law 200Labor Law 240(1)Dangerous Premises ConditionOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityFalling Object Case
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07503
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2020

Martin v. City of New York

Nicholas Martin sued the City of New York after sustaining personal injuries from a fall on a roadway in the Bronx, alleging the City's negligent repair work created the hazardous condition. The City moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not receive prior written notice of the defect as required by the Pothole Law. Martin contended that prior written notice was not necessary because the City's affirmative act of negligence caused the defect. The Appellate Division, First Department, found that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the City's repair work immediately created the dangerous condition. Consequently, the court reversed the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment to the City and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryRoadway DefectMunicipal LiabilityPrior Written NoticeAffirmative NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBronx CountySlip and FallCity of New York
References
13
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04706 [241 AD3d 791]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Gomez v. Tilden Estates, LLC

The plaintiff, Yeison Moncion Gomez, was injured while working on a construction project for Tilden Estates, LLC, and LG Construction Management, Inc., when he slipped on dust while carrying an air conditioning unit up a staircase. He initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claims and the dismissal of the comparative negligence defense, finding triable issues of fact, but affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSlipping HazardElevation-Related WorkSummary JudgmentComparative NegligenceIndustrial CodeStaircase FallAir Conditioning UnitAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. 2013-1699 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2016

People v. Martin (Gregory)

Gregory Martin appealed two judgments from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, for attempted criminal contempt in the second degree, based on violations of an order of protection. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction related to conduct between July 19-22, 2011, finding sufficient legal evidence. However, the judgment for conduct on September 23, 2011, was reversed and dismissed because the verdict was deemed against the weight of the evidence due to witness testimony discrepancies. The court also upheld the amendment of the date in the prosecutor's information, citing CPL 100.45 (2) and 200.70.

Criminal ContemptOrder of ProtectionAttempted Criminal ContemptSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewAmendment of Accusatory InstrumentRosario PacketProsecutor's InformationWitness Testimony
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08589 [156 AD3d 1031]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

Matter of Martins v. DiNapoli

Petitioner Fred Martins, a state trooper, sought accidental disability retirement benefits for two separate knee injuries sustained in November 2012 and July 2013. The first occurred while playing basketball during training, and the second from tripping on a tile at a dimly lit dispatch center. Respondent Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, denied both applications, concluding that neither incident constituted an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed this determination, finding substantial evidence that the injuries resulted from risks that could have been reasonably anticipated or were due to the petitioner's own misstep, and thus were not accidental injuries within the meaning of the law. The court noted that injuries from activities in ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event, or from readily observable and anticipated conditions, do not qualify as accidental.

Accidental Disability RetirementState TrooperKnee InjuryTrip and FallBasketball InjuryAnticipated RiskOrdinary EmploymentCPLR Article 78Disability BenefitsAdministrative Review
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 387 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