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. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

The Matter of the Claim of Estate of Norman Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Decedent Norman Youngjohn, employed by Berry Plastics Corporation, suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Before his permanent partial disability benefits claim for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award was resolved, Youngjohn died in March 2017 from a heart attack unrelated to his work injuries. He left no surviving spouse, minor children, or qualifying dependents. His estate sought the full value of the posthumous SLU award, arguing that 2009 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law, which permitted lump sum SLU payments, rendered WCL § 15 (4) (d) inapplicable. This section limits an estate's recovery for unaccrued SLU benefits to reasonable funeral expenses in cases of unrelated death without qualifying survivors. The Workers' Compensation Board limited the award to funeral expenses, while the Appellate Division held that the estate was entitled to the portion accrued up to the date of death plus reasonable funeral expenses. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the 2009 amendments on lump sum payments did not implicitly alter WCL § 15 (4) (d)'s limitation on an estate's recovery of posthumous SLU awards. The Court emphasized that section 15 (4) (d) remains in effect and must be harmonized with the amendments, limiting recovery to benefits accrued before death and reasonable funeral expenses for the remainder.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lump Sum PaymentEstate RecoveryFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAccrual of BenefitsNew York Court of AppealsUnrelated Death
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. ADJ4447791 (SDO 0259860)
Regular
May 14, 2018

HARRY PIFER vs. LA MESA APPLIANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision. The Board affirmed the original decision but amended the findings of fact and award. Crucially, the Board clarified that the applicant did not sustain a psychiatric injury. However, temporary total disability was awarded for specific periods from February 12, 2004, to March 21, 2007, and from June 12, 2011, to November 12, 2014.

PiferLa Mesa ApplianceState Compensation Insurance FundADJ4447791ADJ813560Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardpsychiatric injurytemporary total disability
References
0
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05331
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2016

People v. Bonie

This case involves an appeal by nonparty News 12 The Bronx, L.L.C., and its representative Dina Sforza, against an order compelling compliance with a subpoena for unaired video footage. The People sought the footage from an interview with defendant Nasean Bonie, who was indicted for the murder of Ramona Moore. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted the People's motion to compel, directing an in camera review and denying News 12's cross-motion to quash the subpoena. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It directed disclosure only of specific portions of the video footage where Bonie discusses killing the victim or their relationship, finding that the People met the necessary showing under New York's Shield Law for these parts, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision. The court clarified that the trial judge need not issue further findings.

Subpoena enforcementJournalistic privilegeShield LawNonconfidential materialIn camera reviewCircumstantial evidenceMurder indictmentVideo footageAppellate reviewFreedom of the press
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 1990

In re John B.

The Family Court in New York County affirmed an order from April 23, 1990, directing the appellant's placement in a Title II facility for up to 12 months. This decision followed a finding that the appellant violated the conditions of a previously imposed 12-month sentence of probation by committing acts which, had they been committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of facilitation in the fourth degree. The appellant entered an admission to these acts on March 14, 1990. The Family Court had explicitly advised the appellant of the consequences of probation violation. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion by the Family Court in ordering placement, noting that a separate dispositional hearing was conducted.

Probation ViolationJuvenile DelinquencyFamily Court ActPlacement OrderJudicial DiscretionFacilitation in the Fourth DegreeDispositional HearingAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
1
Case No. CV-24-1994
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Kevin Krein

Kevin Krein, the appellant, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that awarded him a 12.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right leg. This award resulted from the Board reducing a 25% SLU, assessed after a March 2020 injury, by a prior 12.5% SLU award from a 1999 injury to the same knee. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, citing Matter of Johnson v City of New York, which holds that successive SLU awards for the same body member should not be automatically reduced by prior awards if the subsequent injury causes an increased loss of use, considered independently. The Court found that the Board failed to consider medical evidence regarding whether the injuries represented 'separate pathologies' and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with Matter of Johnson.

Schedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardKnee InjurySuccessive InjuriesSLU OffsetMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewMatter of JohnsonRemittalPermanent Impairment
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02539 [204 AD3d 903]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Leighton v. Chaber, LLC

Michael Leighton (plaintiff) was allegedly injured on March 20, 2013, when he was struck in the eye by debris from a grinder tool while performing renovation work at a property owned by Chaber, LLC, and leased by Starbucks Corporation. He commenced actions against Chaber, LLC, and Starbucks Corporation, asserting violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) predicated upon 12 NYCRR 23-1.33. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court vacated its prior decision and granted the defendants' motions. The plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that 12 NYCRR 23-1.33 does not apply to workers on a construction site, which was the plaintiff's status.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law12 NYCRR 23-1.33Personal InjuryConstruction Site SafetyDebris AccidentReargumentAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationScope of Regulation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Darren H.

Respondent Darren was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and placed with the New York State Division for Youth (DFY) in 1974. He was paroled to his mother in October 1975. In February 1976, DFY filed a petition for a 12-month extension of his placement, citing the benefit of continued services. Although the petition was timely filed, a clerical error delayed its placement before the court until March 11, 1976, after the original placement's termination date of February 28, 1976. Darren's Law Guardian argued the court lacked jurisdiction due to this delay. The court distinguished the case from precedents involving deprivation of liberty for confined juveniles, noting Darren was on parole and did not object to the extension. The court granted the petition, extending placement for 12 months nunc pro tunc February 28, 1976, asserting that neither the petitioner nor the respondent should be penalized for clerical errors, especially when no liberty deprivation for a confined juvenile was at stake.

Juvenile DelinquencyExtension of PlacementNunc Pro TuncClerical ErrorFamily Court ActDue ProcessParole StatusLiberty DeprivationJurisdictionAftercare Services
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 1979

Umeko, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers Union

Umeko, Inc. (petitioner) moved to stay arbitration with the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers Union (respondent). The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Primrose Sportswear, Inc., which was later sold to Umeko. Umeko challenged its obligation under a successorship clause, initiating an NLRB unfair labor practice charge. The court initially issued a temporary restraining order on March 12, 1979, but later denied Umeko's motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO on March 20, 1979, citing Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Subsequently, the Union sought attorneys' fees of $1,061.00 from Northwestern National Insurance Co., surety on Umeko's bond, arguing the TRO was erroneously granted under Section 7 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The court denied the Union's motion, finding a waiver and concluding that a stay of arbitration is not the type of 'injunction' to which Section 7 applies.

Labor LawArbitrationNorris-LaGuardia ActTemporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionAttorneys' FeesCollective Bargaining AgreementSuccessorshipWaiverSurety Bond
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,759 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