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

Mullen v. Zoebe, Inc.

A New York City firefighter, Mullen, sustained a serious back injury while responding to a fire at Zoebe Inc.'s building, which had multiple fire and safety code violations. Mullen sued under General Municipal Law § 205-a, seeking damages. The core legal question was whether comparative fault, as outlined in CPLR article 14-A, could be applied to diminish a firefighter's recovery in such an action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, ruling that comparative fault is incompatible with and undermines the protective intent of General Municipal Law § 205-a. This statute aims to place entire responsibility for injuries arising from safety violations on property owners, thereby protecting firefighters from additional, unavoidable hazards and ensuring full recovery.

Firefighter RuleGeneral Municipal Law § 205-aComparative FaultContributory NegligenceAssumption of RiskStatutory LiabilityPremises LiabilitySafety ViolationsProperty OwnersWorkers' Injury
References
14
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00346 [135 AD3d 837]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2016

Mullen v. Helen Keller Services for the Blind

Andrea Mullen, the injured plaintiff, alleged that she tripped and fell over a treadmill at the defendant's facility in Hempstead while training. She filed an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the treadmill was an open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentOpen and Obvious ConditionNegligenceDuty of CareReasonably Safe ConditionTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewSlip and Fall
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mullen v. Kellam

Plaintiff Terry A. Mullen, an independent contractor, was injured when scaffolding collapsed while he was staining a silo on defendant Bayard Kellam's property. Mullen sought partial summary judgment on liability under New York State Labor Law Section 240, while Kellam cross-moved for summary judgment, claiming exemption as a one or two-family dwelling owner. The court found that the barn/silo complex was used primarily for commercial rental purposes, and Kellam possessed sufficient business acumen to be denied the statutory exemption. Consequently, the court granted Mullen's motion for absolute liability under Section 240 but dismissed his Section 200 and common law negligence claims due to a lack of supervisory control by the defendant.

Scaffolding CollapseLabor Law 240Owner LiabilityCommercial Use ExemptionResidential vs Commercial PropertyBusiness AcumenIndependent ContractorPremises SafetySummary Judgment MotionDual Use Property
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Rockland Shelter Animals, Inc. v. Mullen

Friends of Rockland Shelter Animals, Inc. ("FORSA") sued Samantha Mullen and the Humane Society of the United States ("HSUS") for tortious interference with a prospective business advantage. FORSA was negotiating with Rockland County to operate an animal shelter, but their contract resolution was defeated after Mullen sent a letter to the County Executive critiquing FORSA's proposal and defending the incumbent shelter, Hi Tor. FORSA alleged Mullen's letter contained false statements. Defendants counterclaimed, alleging FORSA's suit was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP suit") under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 70-a. The court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that defendants' lobbying activities were protected by the First Amendment under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and the "sham exception" did not apply. The court also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for attorney's fees and damages, finding FORSA's suit was not entirely without merit.

Tortious InterferenceProspective Business AdvantageSLAPP SuitFirst AmendmentNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSham ExceptionFreedom of SpeechPetition ClauseMotion for Judgment on PleadingsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Passante v. Agway Consumer Products, Inc.

Samuel Passante was injured while operating a dock leveler at his workplace, leading him and his wife to sue his employer, the manufacturer (Rite-Hite), and the seller (Mullen) for defective design and failure to warn. The Supreme Court denied Mullen's summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division's order, modifying it to reinstate the claims for defective design and failure to warn. The court found triable issues of fact concerning whether the dock leveler was unreasonably dangerous without an optional trailer restraint system and the adequacy of existing warnings regarding its use.

Product LiabilityNegligenceDefective DesignFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentDock LevelerIndustrial AccidentOptional Safety FeatureRisk-Utility AssessmentIndustrial Equipment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Commission for Human Rights v. Mullen

The New York State Commission Against Discrimination, as petitioner, filed a motion under Executive Law § 298 seeking judicial enforcement of its order, dated December 3, 1963, against unnamed respondents. This original order stemmed from a hearing concerning alleged unlawful discriminatory practices. The petitioner aimed to secure court benediction for the order, enabling contempt as a remedy for any future violations. The court reviewed Article 15 of the Executive Law, confirming that section 298 permits the commission to obtain such an enforcement order. Consequently, the motion was granted, authorizing the issuance of an order to enforce the commission's original directive.

Enforcement MotionExecutive LawDiscriminatory PracticesStipulationContempt RemedyJudicial ReviewOrder EnforcementNew York LawAdministrative OrderHuman Rights Commission
References
2
Case No. ADJ6710001 (ANA) MF ADJ7803228 (ANA) ADJ8017966 (ANA) ADJ8064588 (ANA) ADJ8262934 (ANA) ADJ9093396 (ANA) ADJ9076943 (ANA) ADJ9083545 (SDO) ADJ6925792 (ANA) ADJ8907815 (ANA) ADJ8819925 (ANA) ADJ9087879 (ANA) ADJ9093460 (ANA) ADJ8443963 (ANA) ADJ6829099 (ANA) ADJ6843222 (ANA)
Regular
May 07, 2015

LARRY WATKINS, GORDON BELL, DANIEL BUGGS, JAMES STIENKE, WILLIAM BRYANT, RONALD JOHNSON, ROBERT HYLAND, WALKER GILLETTE, REGGIE RUCKER, ANDREW SELFRIDGE, DOUG VAN HORN, ANANIAS CARSON, JACK GREGORY, THOMAS MULLEN, WILLIE YOUNG, JOHN HICKS vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the New York State Insurance Fund's (NYSIF) liability for workers' compensation claims filed by former New York Giants employees. NYSIF argued it was not liable due to sovereign immunity and limitations in its New York-centric insurance policies. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the Arbitrator's decision, finding that Coverage B of the policy broadly indemnified the Giants for employee injuries sustained "wherever such injuries may be sustained," without clear exclusionary language. This coverage extended despite NYSIF's arguments about its New York origin and lack of authorization to write insurance in California. The Board also deferred the jurisdictional question for individual claims to the Workers' Compensation Judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNew York State Insurance FundNew York Giantssovereign immunitycomitycoverageextraterritorial injuriesinsurance policy interpretationCoverage Bbusiness operations
References
2
Case No. CA 13-02002
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2015

VEROST, DREW M. v. MITSUBISHI CATERPILLAR FORKLIFT AME

Drew M. Verost and his wife initiated an action for damages after Mr. Verost sustained injuries operating a forklift at Nuttall Gear, LLC. The accident involved a forklift with a disabled safety switch, which pinned Mr. Verost between the mast and the roll cage. The complaint alleged strict products liability against the manufacturer and sellers, and negligence against Nuttall Gear and related entities. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the products liability claims, citing a substantial alteration to the product by a third party. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the negligence claims against the Nuttall Gear defendants, finding a triable issue of fact concerning Mr. Verost's special employee status.

Product LiabilityNegligenceSummary JudgmentForklift AccidentDisabled Safety SwitchSpecial EmployeeWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewDesign DefectAlteration of Product
References
15
Case No. ADJ6710001 (ANA) MF ADJ7803228 (ANA) ADJ8017966 (ANA) ADJ8064588 (ANA) ADJ8262934 (ANA) ADJ9093396 (ANA) ADJ9076943 (ANA) ADJ9083545 (SDO) ADJ6925792 (ANA) ADJ8907815 (ANA) ADJ8819925 (ANA) ADJ9087879 (ANA) ADJ9093460 (ANA) ADJ8443963 (ANA) ADJ6829099 (ANA) ADJ6843222 (ANA)
Regular
May 07, 2015

LARRY WATKINS, GORDON BELL, DANIEL BUGGS, JAMES STIENKE, WILLIAM BRYANT, RONALD JOHNSON, ROBERT HYLAND, WALKER GILLETTE, REGGIE RUCKER, ANDREW SELFRIDGE, DOUG VAN HORN, ANANIAS CARSON, JACK GREGORY, THOMAS MULLEN, WILLIE YOUNG, JOHN HICKS vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an Arbitrator's decision finding the New York State Insurance Fund (NYSIF) liable for workers' compensation claims against the New York Giants. Despite NYSIF's claims of sovereign immunity and limitations to New York coverage, the Board found that the policy's Coverage B provided indemnity for injuries sustained by employees "wherever such injuries may be sustained." The Board emphasized that insurance policy exclusions must be clear, and NYSIF failed to demonstrate any such limitations for injuries occurring outside New York, especially given the team's extensive operations outside the state. The Board also noted that NYSIF's contentions regarding California jurisdiction would be determined on a claim-by-claim basis.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNew York State Insurance FundNew York GiantsSovereign ImmunityComityCalifornia JurisdictionCoverage BOut-of-State InjuriesInsurance Policy LimitationsIndemnify
References
2
Showing 1-9 of 9 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