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

Smith v. M.V. Woods Construction Co.

In this dissenting opinion, Judges Scudder and Kehoe argue that the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant M.V. Woods Construction Co., Inc.'s cross motion to set aside a jury verdict. The plaintiff, Charles C. Smith, was injured while lifting cement blocks onto an eight-foot-high scaffolding, and the jury found a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (f). The dissenting judges contend that the Industrial Code provision, concerning safe vertical passage, is inapplicable because the plaintiff's injury was not related to accessing working levels but to manual material handling. They conclude that any alleged violation was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's back injury, and the complaint against the defendant should have been dismissed.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(f)Scaffolding SafetyProximate CauseJury VerdictDissenting OpinionMaterial HandlingSafe Means of AccessAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24048 [3 Misc 3d 347]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc.

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hudson River Construction Co., Inc., Albany Asphalt & Aggregates Corp., and Robert C. Higley. The plaintiff, Carlynann V. Johnson, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Warren D. Johnson, sought damages for the death of Warren D. Johnson, who was crushed by a truck at a construction site. Defendants argued that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 limited their liability to reckless conduct, eliminating a duty of care. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of duty to Johnson as an employee at a construction site and misapplied VTL § 1103, which does not apply to construction workers. The court also found that the defendants failed to establish that Johnson was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligence ActionConstruction Site FatalityWorkplace Safety DutyVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party LiabilityWrongful Death ClaimEmployer ResponsibilityHighway Construction Accident
References
14
Case No. 2015-1094 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. against V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C., an assignee, concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant appealed an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims for services rendered between October 2009 and February 2010. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had properly mailed denial of claim forms and established that the amounts sought by the plaintiff exceeded the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the relevant parts of the complaint.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFee Schedule DefenseDenial of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleInsurance LawFirst-Party BenefitsAssignee RightsCivil Court Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This consolidated opinion addresses the enforceability of broad indemnification agreements between general contractors and subcontractors under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, especially when the general contractor is found partially negligent. The Court reviewed two appeals: Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. and Stottlar v Ginsburg Dev. Corp. In both instances, subcontractor employees suffered injuries, leading to claims against general contractors who, in turn, sought contractual indemnification. The Court concluded that because the agreements sought full indemnification, even where the general contractor contributed to the negligence, they were entirely void and unenforceable under the statute. The legislative intent behind § 5-322.1 is to prevent contractors from contractually shifting liability for their own negligence, whether in whole or in part, to subcontractors, thereby affirming the public policy against such clauses.

Indemnification agreementGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Subcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor negligenceConstruction project injuriesWorkers' compensation insuranceCommercial general liabilityStatutory interpretationPublic policyContractual indemnification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

Plaintiff Mario Miguel Jaramillo sustained serious injuries while operating an industrial Flexo Folder Gluer machine. The machine was purchased used by his employer, Universal Glenwood Packaging Products Corporation, from Weyerhaeuser Company. Jaramillo filed a strict products liability claim against Weyerhaeuser, alleging the machine was defective due to the lack of safety devices. The central issue, certified by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to the New York Court of Appeals, was whether Weyerhaeuser, as a seller of used equipment, qualified as a 'regular seller' subject to strict liability under New York law. Reviewing prior precedents like Sukljian v Ross & Son Co. and Stiles v Batavia Atomic Horseshoes, the court analyzed the policy considerations behind imposing strict liability. The court concluded that Weyerhaeuser's incidental sales of used, third-hand equipment as surplus did not meet the criteria for a 'regular seller' and would not serve the public policy goals of strict products liability, answering the certified question in the negative.

Strict Products LiabilityCasual Seller DoctrineOrdinary Seller DoctrineUsed Goods LiabilityCertified QuestionNew York LawIndustrial Machinery AccidentWorkplace InjuryCorporate Surplus SalesProduct Defect
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. 2013-2706 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2016

NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., concerned an appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County. The plaintiff, NYS Acupuncture, P.C., sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from State Farm, which had moved for summary judgment arguing full payment according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court initially granted State Farm's motion. On appeal, NYS Acupuncture, P.C. contended that the fee schedule reductions were improper. The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed the prior ruling, finding that State Farm adequately demonstrated it had fully compensated the plaintiff for acupuncture services based on the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule for services performed by chiropractors, referencing Great Wall Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co.

Workers' Compensation Fee ScheduleNo-Fault BenefitsAcupuncture ServicesChiropractorsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeFee Schedule ReductionAssigned BenefitsMedical Billing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact
References
29
Case No. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03999 [229 AD3d 1307]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2024

Bates v. Gannett Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Richard L. Bates, Francis L. Goodsell et al., and Ballard Tackett et al., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had granted defendant Gannett Co., Inc.'s motion to stay their Child Victims Act (CVA) actions and refer the claims to the Workers' Compensation Board. The plaintiffs are seeking damages for sexual abuse by a supervisor during their employment in the 1980s. The Supreme Court had also held the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend their complaints in abeyance. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this order, holding that questions concerning the CVA's revival of time-barred workers' compensation claims and the limitation of plaintiffs to such benefits are matters of pure statutory interpretation and law, falling within the court's jurisdiction, not the Workers' Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction. The Appellate Division denied the defendant's motion and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings on these legal questions and to rule on the plaintiffs' cross-motions to amend their complaints.

Child Victims ActSexual AbuseWorkers' CompensationScope of EmploymentPrimary JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRemittalPleading AmendmentCourt Jurisdiction
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 21,166 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