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
Dec 28, 1996

People v. Vasquez

This opinion addresses three consolidated appeals (*People v. Vasquez*, *People v. Dalton*, *People v. Adkinson*) concerning the admissibility of hearsay statements from 911 calls under the "present sense impression" and "excited utterance" exceptions. The Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for present sense impressions, emphasizing strict contemporaneity and independent corroboration, and found these criteria were not met in the offers of proof. Specifically, in Vasquez, the 911 call was excluded due to insufficient corroboration, while Dalton's and Adkinson's 911 statements were inadmissible for lacking contemporaneity. The Court affirmed the convictions in Vasquez and Dalton, and modified Adkinson's sentence regarding consecutive counts while otherwise affirming the conviction.

Hearsay RulePresent Sense ImpressionExcited Utterance911 CallsEvidentiary LawCriminal AppealsCorroboration RequirementContemporaneity PrincipleSentencing ModificationIdentification Testimony
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00519
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2024

Vasquez v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.

Plaintiff Nidia Vasquez suffered severe injuries at a construction site when a 32-foot ladder fell, leading to a lawsuit against Gilbane Building Company et al. alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and a jury subsequently awarded her approximately $2.3 million for cervical spine and rotator cuff injuries, including significant future pain and suffering and lost earnings. Defendants appealed, contending that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable as the ladder was not in use, and arguing that plaintiff's actions constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to falling objects requiring securing regardless of use, rejected the sole proximate cause argument as speculative, and found the jury's damages award reasonable.

Construction Site AccidentFalling Ladder InjuryLabor Law Section 240(1)Absolute LiabilityElevation-Related HazardSummary JudgmentDamages AwardFuture Pain and SufferingLost EarningsAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. 532665
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christian Vasquez

Christian Vasquez, a demolition worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after injuring his left ankle from a fall off a ladder at work. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing a prior soccer injury and discrepancies in testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board found a work-related injury and awarded benefits, upholding the statutory presumption for unwitnessed accidents and crediting the claimant's testimony. The Board also relied on medical opinions that the severe Achilles tendon rupture could not have been sustained prior to the work incident given the claimant's ability to work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings supported by substantial evidence and its credibility determinations reasonable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryLeft Ankle InjuryLadder FallDemolition WorkUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03297 [205 AD3d 1250]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Matter of Vasquez v. Northstar Constr. Group Servs. Inc.

Claimant, Christian Vasquez, sought workers' compensation benefits for a left ankle injury sustained after slipping and falling from a ladder at work. The Workers' Compensation Board found that claimant sustained a work-related injury and upheld the award of benefits, applying the presumption that an unwitnessed accident occurring in the course of employment also arises out of that employment. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing claimant's prior ankle injury and non-disclosure undermined medical opinions and the Board's findings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding its findings were supported by substantial evidence and the Board's credibility determinations regarding claimant's testimony and medical evidence were valid.

Workers' CompensationAnkle InjuryLadder FallAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentStatutory PresumptionCredibility DeterminationMedical OpinionCausal Relationship
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04842 [129 AD3d 828]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2015

Vasquez-Roldan v. Two Little Red Hens, Ltd.

Doroteo Vasquez-Roldan, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from a scaffold lacking safety rails while removing pipes during a renovation. He initiated a consolidated action against BSH, LLC, the premises owner, and Two Little Red Hens, Ltd., the lessee, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the inadequate safety devices, and the defendants failed to present a triable issue of fact regarding sole proximate cause. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability was granted.

Scaffold accidentPersonal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary judgmentAppellate reversalWorker safetyElevated work siteProximate causeNondelegable dutyPremises liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Masucci

Plaintiff Steven Marcus filed a complaint against Samuel Masucci and Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment related to an investment product. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action. The court found that Marcus, as a registered employee of Chase Securities (an NASD member), was bound by a Form U-4 agreement to arbitrate disputes under NASD rules. Masucci, employed by Bear Stearns (also an NASD member), was an 'associated person.' The court determined that an enforceable arbitration agreement existed and that its broad scope encompassed Marcus's claims, including those predating his employment with Chase Securities. Consequently, the motion to compel arbitration was granted, and the action was dismissed with leave to reopen if necessary after arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActNASD By-lawsForm U-4Securities IndustryEmployment DisputeTrade SecretsUnfair CompetitionUnjust EnrichmentRetroactive Application
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Marcus

Defendant Glenn Marcus was convicted of sex trafficking and forced labor stemming from his abusive BDSM relationship with Jodi, who he coerced into performing sexual acts and labor for his commercial website. Marcus moved for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, arguing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) did not apply to intimate relationships or consensual BDSM, and that there was insufficient evidence of a nexus between his force/coercion and the commercial sex acts or labor. The court denied both motions, upholding the convictions. The court found the TVPA statutes were broadly applicable, rejecting a narrow interpretation based on intimate relationships, and affirmed that evidence sufficiently demonstrated Marcus's use of non-consensual force and coercion to compel Jodi's participation in commercial sex acts and website-related labor, despite the BDSM context.

Sex TraffickingForced LaborBDSMRule 29 MotionRule 33 MotionTrafficking Victims Protection ActStatutory InterpretationRule of LenityCommercial Sex ActsSexual Exploitation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2012

Vasquez v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Theresa Vasquez brought this action against defendant Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation after her husband, David Vasquez, died during the course of his employment at a building managed by defendant. David Vasquez fell to his death from an exhaust duct after climbing out of a scissor lift while attempting to replace ceiling tiles. The plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide proper safety devices. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim and also moved for summary judgment arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the order was modified to grant plaintiff conditional partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provision, citing outstanding questions of fact regarding defendant's status as a special employer.

Labor LawScissor Lift AccidentFall from HeightWorksite SafetySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmployerStrict LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Devices
References
5
Case No. ADJ8799397
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

GABRIEL VASQUEZ vs. CEVA FREIGHT, LLC, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and found applicant Gabriel Vasquez was an employee of CEVA Freight, LLC, reversing the original finding that he was an independent contractor. The WCAB determined that CEVA Freight exerted significant control over Vasquez's work, dictating delivery routes, times, and requiring specific attire and truck branding. Factors such as the nature of the work being part of CEVA's core business and Vasquez's limited English proficiency and education further supported the conclusion that he was an employee, not an independent contractor. This decision overturns the administrative law judge's initial order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmployee statusIndependent contractorControl of workBorello factorsDistinct occupationSkill requiredInstrumentalitiesMethod of paymentRegular business
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 116 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