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
Mar 26, 1971

Maurizio v. Hoberman

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 26, 1971, concerning the rating examination papers of civil service workers. The initial judgment confirmed a Special Referee's report but was subsequently modified. The modification involved remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, with the judgment then affirmed as modified. The court underscored that the duty to establish requirements for promotional examinations lies solely with the respondents, and judicial interference is unwarranted if exercised fairly. Although the respondents did not participate in the appeal, implying agreement with the Special Term's views, the courts reaffirmed their inability to assume the respondents' powers or duties.

Civil ServicePromotional ExaminationExamination PapersJudicial ReviewRemandSupreme CourtReferee ReportAdministrative DiscretionJudicial RestraintNew York
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01881 [215 AD3d 722]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Andrade v. Bergen Beach 26, LLC

The plaintiff, Freddy Andrade, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on liability against Bergen Beach 26, LLC, for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Andrade was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder at a construction site where his employer was a subcontractor. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated and if such a violation was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction SiteLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityAppellate ReviewPrima FacieTriable Issues of FactSubcontractor
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parks v. Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Stephanie Parks filed a race discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. OTDA moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing it was filed after Title VII's 90-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff received her EEOC right-to-sue letter around December 26, 2008, setting a March 26, 2009 deadline. While the complaint was formally filed on March 30, 2009, the court found it was timely, having been initially submitted to the Clerk on March 17, 2009, and returned only for a minor cover sheet correction. Citing rules against rejecting filings for mere form issues, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, deeming the initial submission date as the filing date.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIIStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionTimeliness of FilingEEOC Right-to-SueFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureClerk's ErrorEmployment DiscriminationMotion to Dismiss
References
18
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04739 [241 AD3d 844]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Rivera v. 26 W. 56, LLC

Nancy Rivera, an employee of Alba Services, Inc., was injured during a building renovation project when an HVAC duct fell on her while she was removing demolition debris. She commenced an action against the property owner, 26 W. 56, LLC, and the general contractor, Abeco Construction, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss this cause of action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the HVAC duct required securing and fell due to an inadequate safety device, and also failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injuries.

Falling ObjectDemolition AccidentConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactWorker SafetyHVAC DuctProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates, LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Urbina, an electrician, sustained severe injuries after falling from a Baker scaffold at a construction site, leading to a fractured patella and multiple surgeries. He and his wife, Lucy Nunez, sued the premises owner, 26 Court Street Associates, LLC, the lessee/general contractor, Town Sports International, Inc. (TSI), and the drywall subcontractor, R & J Construction Corp. (R & J), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court's judgment, awarding substantial damages, was appealed, specifically regarding awards for pain and suffering. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, conditionally reducing the awards for past and future pain and suffering, while affirming the grant of contractual indemnity to TSI and Court Street against R & J, based on R & J's contractual obligation to provide scaffolding.

Construction site injuryScaffolding accidentPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLabor Law § 240(1)Damages modificationPain and suffering awardLost wages awardPatella fractureSubcontractor negligence
References
19
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. ADJ2925672 (MON 0319752) ADJ176214 (MON 0319757)
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIO FACILITIES, WARNER BROTHERS WORKERS' COMP.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied George Zimmerman's petition for reconsideration regarding a March 26, 2004 injury, agreeing that it did not arise out of his employment. However, the Board granted reconsideration to correct a mathematical error in the permanent disability award for a cumulative trauma back injury, adjusting the award from 31.5% to 30.5% after a 50% apportionment to non-industrial factors. The Board affirmed the WCJ's determination regarding the apportionment for the cumulative trauma injury, while clarifying that the specific March 26, 2004 injury was not industrial. The Amended Findings and Award were modified to reflect the corrected permanent disability rating and attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryBack InjuryLeft Knee InjuryApportionmentPermanent Disability RatingAgreed Medical ExaminerTemporary Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ11896735; ADJ3117080
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

LORRAINE GONSALVES vs. FRONTIER MANAGEMENT LLC, CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CAMP FIRE USA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) addressed a petition for removal filed by Lorraine Gonsalves (applicant) after she filed a document challenging previous orders, which the Board treated as a petition for removal. The applicant had previously sought reconsideration of a February 18, 2025 decision related to ADJ11896735 and sought review of March 26, 2025 orders taking ADJ3117080 off calendar and continuing ADJ11896735. The Board dismissed the petition for removal, finding that the February 18, 2025 decision was a non-final, interlocutory order from which a petition for reconsideration could not be taken and that the petition was untimely. Regarding the March 26, 2025 orders, the Board determined the applicant had not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPWCJOff CalendarContinued TrialSet Aside OrderLack of ProsecutionTimelinessFinal Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp.

This case addresses whether delivery workers for Duane Reade, hired by Hudson/Chelsea defendants, were independent contractors or employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs, led by Faty Ansoumana, alleged they were employees and sought unpaid minimum wages and overtime. Judge Hellerstein applied an 'economic reality' test, concluding that the delivery workers were indeed employees of the Hudson/Chelsea defendants. Furthermore, the court found Duane Reade to be a 'joint employer' alongside the Hudson/Chelsea defendants, making both jointly and severally liable for violations concerning foot delivery workers assigned to Duane Reade stores between January 13, 1994, and March 26, 2000. Rulings for other delivery worker groups and the period after March 26, 2000, were deferred for further discovery.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Minimum Wage ActJoint EmploymentIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee MisclassificationPartial Summary JudgmentDelivery WorkersOutsourcing LiabilityRetail IndustryWage and Hour Disputes
References
24
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,074 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