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. 2014 NY Slip Op 08026
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2014

Matter of Chloe P. Mc. (Lajohn M.--Danielle P.)

This case involves an appeal by Danielle P. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated August 21, 2013, which awarded Lajohn M. supervised visitation with the subject child, Chloe P. Mc. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal. The court found that no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party, as Danielle P. had consented to the supervised visits.

Family LawChild VisitationSupervised VisitationAppeal DismissedConsent OrderAppellate ProcedureParental RightsChild WelfareFamily CourtAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. ADJ9001538
Regular
Sep 14, 2018

, PEDRO MONTELONGO vs. MC ROOFING CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a WCJ's decision denying sanctions and attorneys' fees against defendants MC Roofing Corporation and its insurer, SCIF. The applicant alleged bad faith conduct by MC Roofing's owner, Manuel Cuevas, and sought sanctions against him and SCIF, as well as attorney's fees from retroactive temporary total disability benefits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further investigate whether Cuevas is a defendant, whether his alleged misconduct can be imputed to MC Roofing, and if sanctions are appropriate. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the issue of sanctions against Cuevas.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPedro MontelongoMC Roofing CorporationState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings of FactSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith ConductAttorney Fees
References
3
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

In re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation

This Order and Opinion addresses the approval of settlements in 78 cases stemming from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The plaintiffs, represented by Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern LLP, are individuals who developed respiratory and gastrointestinal illnesses from working in buildings surrounding the World Trade Center site. These settlements resolve claims against a multitude of defendants in the 21-mc-102 docket. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein meticulously reviewed the settlements, finding them procedurally and substantively fair and reasonable given the inherent complexities of mass tort litigation. The motion to approve the settlements is granted, leading to the dismissal of claims for 26 plaintiffs and partial dismissal against settling defendants for the remaining 52 plaintiffs.

September 11 litigationWorld Trade CenterMass tortSettlement approvalToxic dust exposureRespiratory illnessesGastrointestinal illnessesSouthern District of New YorkClass action factorsProcedural fairness
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doucoure v. Atlantic Development Group, LLC

Plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries when concrete debris, dislodged by an employee of masonry subcontractor MC and O Construction, fell into an elevator shaft and struck him. The incident occurred while the plaintiff was pumping water out of the shaft, after the required safety planking had been removed. The plaintiff filed claims under Labor Law § 241-a and § 240 (1). The court found a violation of Labor Law § 241-a due to the absence of planking but determined that a factual question remained regarding proximate cause, preventing summary judgment for the plaintiff against Ogden Avenue Associates, L.E. The Labor Law § 241-a claim was dismissed against Atlantic Development Group, LLC and MC and O Construction, Inc., as they were not deemed owners' agents. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed entirely because the falling concrete chip was neither being hoisted nor secured at the time of the accident. The court modified the lower court's decision, granting Ogden Avenue Associates, L.E.'s cross motion for contractual indemnification against MC and O Construction, Inc., as any liability on Ogden's part would be purely statutory. This decision came after reargument, vacating a prior order from November 18, 2004.

Construction AccidentFalling DebrisElevator Shaft SafetyLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationProximate CauseComparative NegligenceAppellate ReviewWorker Injury
References
8
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2014

Avila v. Abatement Professionals

Eight plaintiffs, victims of World Trade Center cleanup injuries, sued Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) for negligence and New York Labor Law violations. Their initial claims were dismissed for untimely notice. The New York Legislature enacted 'Jimmy Nolan’s Law' to revive these time-barred claims. BPCA moved for summary judgment, arguing the law was unconstitutional as applied to it. The court granted BPCA’s motion, ruling that Jimmy Nolan’s Law was an unconstitutional 'extreme exercise of legislative power' because the circumstances did not present the 'exceptional circumstances' or 'serious injustice' required to revive time-barred claims under the New York State Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The court found that New York's 'discovery rule' for latent injuries already provided adequate protection, distinguishing this case from prior instances where revival statutes were upheld. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claims against BPCA were dismissed.

World Trade Center9/11 cleanuptoxic dustlatent injuriesstatute of limitationsrevival statutedue processNew York State Constitutionpublic benefit corporationgovernment liability
References
51
Case No. 21 MC 97
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2009

In Re September 11 Litigation

District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein accepted the mediator's report concerning the extensive settlements achieved in the wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits arising from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. These cases, filed under the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSSSA) in the Southern District of New York, involved victims and their families suing airlines and aviation-related companies. Mediator Sheila L. Birnbaum, assisted by Thomas E. Fox, successfully resolved 72 out of 95 cases through a meticulous mediation process that addressed complex legal issues, sensitive security information (SSI) discovery, and varying state laws governing damages. The court's order highlights the challenges faced in these mass torts, including balancing claimant equity, ensuring fair contingent fees, and navigating the unique circumstances of the litigation, ultimately leading to approximately $500 million in aggregate settlements.

September 11th AttacksWrongful DeathPersonal Injury LitigationMass TortsMediationSettlement NegotiationsAir Transportation Safety and System Stabilization ActVictim Compensation FundSensitive Security InformationDamages Discovery
References
16
Case No. 21 MC 100
Regular Panel Decision

In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

This opinion addresses motions to stay proceedings in lawsuits filed by thousands of workers, including Kirk Arsenault and Steve Zablocki, who claim respiratory and other injuries from 9/11 World Trade Center clean-up efforts. The court clarifies the scope of a prior Second Circuit stay order concerning appeals of immunity claims made by the City of New York and its contractors. Judge Hellerstein rules that the Second Circuit's stay applies to appealing defendants within the CM03-defined World Trade Center site. Consequently, defendant Tully Construction Co. Inc.'s motion to stay is granted, while defendant Verizon New York Inc.'s motion is denied without prejudice, requiring a further showing of its immunity defense. Cases against non-appealing defendants or those outside the CM03 area are generally permitted to proceed with discovery.

World Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-up WorkersRespiratory InjuriesImmunity DefenseMotions to StayAppellate JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealCase Management OrdersFederal JurisdictionStabilization Act
References
10
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mc Gill

Defendant Gregory Me Gill, indicted for criminal possession of a weapon, moved to suppress a pistol, ammunition, holsters, a briefcase, and statements made to the police. The court held an evidentiary hearing where Police Officer Howard testified he observed Me Gill purchasing a shoulder holster, then approached, frisked, and searched him and his briefcase, finding a loaded pistol. After arrest, Me Gill made statements following Miranda warnings. The court, applying the four-tiered methodology from People v De Bour and People v Hollman, found the officer's actions unjustified by a founded suspicion of criminality, making the intrusion improper. It ruled that any alleged consent to search was invalid due to the unlawful inquiry. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion to suppress both the physical evidence and the statements.

Criminal Possession of WeaponMotion to SuppressFourth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureIndividual LibertyPrivacy RightsTerry StopReasonable SuspicionProbable CauseMiranda Warnings
References
13
Case No. 21 MC 101, 04 Civ. 7272(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

In Re September 11 Property Damage

This opinion addresses the legal sufficiency of third-party actions filed by Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Silverstein), owners and developers of 7 World Trade Center, seeking indemnification and contribution. Silverstein, who was both a plaintiff and defendant in various lawsuits following the September 11, 2001, destruction of 7WTC, brought claims against OEM Design and Construction Defendants, Citigroup Design and Construction Defendants, and engineers Irwin Cantor and Syska. The court granted motions to dismiss from all third-party defendants. It found OEM defendants immune under the New York State Defense Emergency Act, Citigroup defendants protected by Silverstein's prior assumption of risk, and Irwin Cantor and Syska dismissed for failure to meet heightened pleading standards for licensed design professionals.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterProperty DamageBusiness LossThird-Party LitigationIndemnificationContributionMotions to DismissSDEA ImmunityAssumption of Risk
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 21 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