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
May 18, 2005

Hotel 57 LLC v. Harvard Maintenance, Inc.

In this case, the plaintiff hotel sought over $300,000 for replacing 16 scratched windows, attributing the damage to the defendant's window cleaners. The defendant denied responsibility, suggesting the scratches were preexisting. Crucially, the plaintiff destroyed and replaced the windows without notifying the defendant, sixteen months prior to filing the lawsuit. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on spoliation of evidence. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing the plaintiff's intentional destruction of evidence critical to the lawsuit, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the complaint.

spoliation of evidencesummary judgmentappellate reviewwindow damageproperty damageintentional destruction of evidencecivil procedureNew York lawconstructionnegligence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraser v. 301-52 Townhouse Corp.

Plaintiffs, former residents of a cooperative apartment building owned by 301-52 Townhouse Corp., sought damages for personal injuries, including respiratory problems, rash, and fatigue, allegedly caused by dampness and mold. The defendants moved for summary judgment and preclusion of expert evidence. A Frye hearing was held to assess the general acceptance of plaintiffs' causation theory. The motion court granted the defendants' motion, precluding expert evidence and dismissing the personal injury claims, a decision that was upheld upon reargument and renewal. The appellate court affirmed, stating that association does not equate to causation and that plaintiffs failed to establish the general acceptance of their theory, specific causation, or reliable measurements of mold levels. The court also found good cause for the defendants' delayed motion for summary judgment.

Frye HearingExpert EvidenceCausationMold ExposureDampnessPersonal Injury ClaimSummary Judgment AffirmedScientific ReliabilityMedical Literature ReviewDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 31964(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2008

Voultepsis v. Gumley-Haft-Klierer, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying a defendant's summary judgment motion and partially denying plaintiffs' motions regarding Labor Law claims, workers' compensation defense, and spoliation of evidence. The plaintiff, a superintendent, was injured in a fall from a ladder while replacing a floor in a cooperative apartment building, where the appellant served as the managing agent. The court found questions of fact regarding the appellant's statutory agency under Labor Law § 240 (1) and authority/notice under Labor Law § 200, thus affirming the denial of defendant's summary judgment. However, the court modified the order by granting plaintiffs' motion to strike the appellant's Workers’ Compensation Law defense, concluding the appellant lacked sufficient control over the plaintiff's work to be considered a special employer. The denial of the motion to strike the appellant's answer for spoliation was affirmed, as the appellant adequately explained its inability to find the requested documents.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Workers' Compensation LawStatutory AgentSpecial EmployerSpoliation of EvidenceLadder AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2005

Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund v. Blakel Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying renewal of a prior summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the renewal. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, ruling that the denial of a summary judgment motion does not constitute collateral estoppel as it is not an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the court granted renewal and, upon renewal, awarded summary judgment to Neighborhood Partnership Housing Development Fund for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. and Inner City Drywall. Additionally, F & S Real Estate Development Corp. was awarded summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Blakel Construction Corp. The court found the indemnification provisions enforceable due to the lack of evidence of active negligence by the plaintiffs and insufficient evidence from defendants regarding supervision or control over the injury-producing work. However, the motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning liability.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction ContractsActive NegligenceRight to Stop WorkAppellate DivisionBronx CountyWorker's Compensation Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Buckman

The defendant moved for suppression of physical evidence, suppression of statements, and inspection of Grand Jury minutes. The court criticized the District Attorney's affidavit for lacking factual support. The motion for a suppression hearing concerning physical evidence was granted. However, the court denied the motion for a Huntley hearing due to the defendant's failure to provide sworn factual allegations. The request to inspect Grand Jury minutes was also denied, as the motion papers did not meet the statutory requirements for showing reasonable cause.

Criminal Procedure LawPenal LawSuppression HearingGrand Jury MinutesHuntley HearingPhysical EvidenceStatementsIndictmentDangerous DrugAffidavit
References
13
Case No. ADJ10407856
Regular
Sep 18, 2019

EXTRAIN NEVAREZ vs. VLAD SOMOV, dba AMERICAN CHOICE VAN LINES, LLC, GO EASY MOVERS, INC., EMPLOYERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN CASYUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision due to an inadequate record and procedural errors. The arbitrator failed to create a proper Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence as required by law. The case is returned to the arbitrator for further proceedings, including the presentation of insurance policies and a new decision, ensuring compliance with discovery and evidence rules. The Board emphasized the importance of a complete record for fair and timely resolution of coverage disputes.

ReconsiderationRescindedArbitrationInsurance CoverageCumulative TraumaArbitrator AuthorityFindings and OrderMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceWCAB Rule 10566
References
9
Case No. ADJ1525428
Regular
Aug 20, 2013

Raymond Barrios vs. Irwin Industries, Inc., California Insurance Guarantee Association, For California Compensation Insurance Company, In Liquidation, Mobil Corporation, Petroleum Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated an arbitrator's findings due to an incomplete arbitration file, lacking essential evidence and documentation. The WCAB found the arbitrator failed to comply with regulations requiring minutes of hearing, stipulations, and a summary of evidence. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the arbitrator's decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The prior order compelling arbitration was also vacated, allowing parties to resubmit to arbitration if desired.

WCABCIGAarbitrationreconsiderationarbitration fileminutes of hearingsummary of evidencedocumentary evidencetestimonial evidencestipulated facts
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drouillard v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.

The Plaintiff brought claims of hostile work environment based on race and gender, as well as retaliation, against the Defendant employer. The court found sufficient evidence to deny summary judgment for the race-based hostile work environment claim, citing repeated use of racial epithets by a coworker, Elkilany. However, the court granted summary judgment for the gender-based hostile work environment claims, finding the allegations of sexual proposition and general use of 'bitch' insufficiently severe. All retaliation claims were also dismissed, as the Plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her protected activities and the alleged adverse employment actions. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment against the Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, finding no evidence of malice or reckless indifference on the employer's part.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial HarassmentGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace DiscriminationRacial SlursSexual Harassment AllegationsEmployer Liability
References
89
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. Michael Anthony George Construction Corp.

This Memorandum & Order addresses a motion for partial summary judgment filed by multiple plaintiffs against landscaping and construction businesses and their owner, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law regarding unpaid overtime and retaliation. The Court denied summary judgment on the FLSA claim due to insufficient evidence of interstate commerce. However, partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiffs on their state law overtime claims, as evidence showed they worked over forty hours without proper compensation. The employee status of three plaintiffs (Juan Castillo, Juan Leonel Lopez Juarez, and Jorge Mario Ramos Munoz) remained a disputed factual issue, exempting their claims from this partial judgment.

FLSANew York Labor LawOvertime CompensationWage and Hour DisputeSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityEmployee MisclassificationRetaliation ClaimInterstate Commerce RequirementPayroll Record Inadequacy
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 17,230 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