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. 2014 NY Slip Op 05319 [119 AD3d 766]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Siekkeli v. Mark Mariani, Inc.

In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff Mika P. Siekkeli was allegedly injured while working at Mark Mariani, Inc., when a heavy door fell on him. He sued Mariani and Mark Varley. Mariani then filed a third-party action against its insurance broker, Frank Crystal & Co., alleging inadequate coverage. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment motions by Varley and Mariani, citing triable issues regarding Siekkeli's employment status, but granted Crystal's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed the order, finding that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine employment status and that the Supreme Court erred in granting Crystal's motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentInsurance Broker NegligenceThird-Party ActionEmployment StatusPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewCoverage DenialIndependent Contractor
References
8
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of Mark C.H.

This case addresses whether New York's SCPA article 17-A, governing guardianship for persons with mental retardation and developmental disabilities, meets constitutional standards without requiring periodic reporting and review. The facts involve Mark C.H., an adult with profound autism and mental retardation, for whom a $3 million trust existed but whose guardians (petitioner, his late mother's attorney, and a corporate bank) initially failed to use funds for his benefit, leading to suboptimal care. The court, applying the Mathews v Eldridge test and considering international human rights norms, found that the significant infringement on a ward's liberty interests necessitates periodic oversight. Consequently, the court held that article 17-A must be read to include a requirement for yearly reporting and judicial review for guardians of the person. The guardianship for Mark C.H. was granted to the petitioner with this new yearly reporting obligation.

GuardianshipDue ProcessMental RetardationDevelopmental DisabilitiesSCPA Article 17-APeriodic ReviewWard's RightsTrust Funds MismanagementMedical Care AccessConstitutional Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2018

Hong-Bao Ren v. Gioia St. Marks, LLC

Plaintiff Hong-Bao Ren sustained injuries while working on a kitchen renovation project at a restaurant leased by Eight Oranges Inc. from landlord Gioia St. Marks, LLC. Ren fell while attempting to remove a ventilator, on which he was standing, after it detached from the wall, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide proper safety devices. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting Ren partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Gioia and Eight Oranges. The court determined that the ventilator was not a safety device and that an inadequate ladder was provided, preventing safe work. Additionally, conditional summary judgment for contractual indemnification was granted to Gioia against Eight Oranges, based on an unambiguous indemnification clause in their lease agreement.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Elevation-Related RiskSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationLandlord-Tenant LeaseDemolition WorkSafety Device FailureWorkplace FallAppellate ReviewAbsolute Liability
References
7
Case No. 533323
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Mark Mogilevsky

Claimant Mark Mogilevsky, a former train car inspector, sought workers' compensation benefits for occupational binaural hearing loss. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim and found a 3.3% schedule loss of use, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. Mogilevsky appealed, challenging the Board's decision to reject the medical opinion of his otolaryngologist, Dr. Michael Alleva, who assessed a 45.3% hearing loss. The Board had dismissed Alleva's findings, stating he failed to explain how Mogilevsky could work with nearly 50% hearing loss without deficits. The Appellate Division found no evidence in the record to support the Board's rationale for rejecting Dr. Alleva's opinion. Consequently, the court concluded that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence and reversed the decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceSchedule Loss of UseBinaural Hearing LossSubstantial EvidenceCredibility AssessmentMedical Expert OpinionAppellate ReviewReversal
References
3
Case No. 534701
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Mark Spillers

Claimant Mark K. Spillers appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board which ruled that he did not sustain a causally-related psychological injury and disallowed his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Spillers, a senior rehabilitation counselor, alleged depression, psychosis, and PTSD due to a verbal assault by a coworker in December 2013. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found prima facie medical evidence based on his treating psychiatrist's reports but disallowed the claim, finding Spillers' account of the incident not credible and that the dispute did not constitute a workplace accident. The Board affirmed, deferring to the WCLJ's credibility determinations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the December 2013 incident was an ordinary dispute among coworkers to which the employer responded appropriately, and it was not so extraordinary as to constitute a workplace accident under the Workers' Compensation Law.

Workers' CompensationPsychological InjuryVerbal AssaultCoworker DisputeCredibility DeterminationDue ProcessWorkplace AccidentCausationPermanent Partial DisabilityDisability Retirement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. Irish Development Corp.

Plaintiff William R. Bailey, Sr., a general laborer, was injured during the removal of large concrete footings from a dump truck when the excavator operator prematurely pulled a chain, causing the concrete to shift and the dump body to rapidly rise, resulting in the plaintiff's fall. He and his wife, derivatively, sued various contractors and owners, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed several other claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissals related to Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), concluding that the accident did not involve an elevation-related hazard as defined by the statute and that the industrial code provision was misapplied. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against the Mark defendants, finding that questions of fact existed regarding their potential supervision or notice of the unsafe working conditions.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentElevation HazardProximate CauseOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01008
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2020

Matter of Hodge v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case concerns Mark Hodge's appeal against the New York City Transit Authority after his petition to annul an arbitration award, which upheld his employment termination, and a petition to annul the denial of his reinstatement request were denied. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decisions. The court determined that Hodge's termination for felony-level conduct was not against public policy, as specific Correction Law articles pertaining to prior convictions did not apply to convictions during employment. Furthermore, the New York City Human Rights Law was inapplicable because Hodge's guilty plea meant the acts were more than mere accusations. The court also found that the denial of his reinstatement request was not arbitrary or capricious, as the agency possessed discretion in such matters and Hodge was attempting to relitigate previously decided issues.

Employment terminationArbitration award appealReinstatement denialPublic policy defenseCorrection Law applicationCriminal conviction in employmentNew York City Human Rights LawAdverse employment actionDiscretionary agency actionCPLR Article 75 proceeding
References
5
Case No. 2023-01678 / Index No. 605328/20
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2026

Barbu v. Doyle

In this personal injury action, Mark Barbu and his wife appealed from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Connan Land Company, LLC, Kenneth Doyle, and Par 4 Property Management, LLC. The injured plaintiff, Mark Barbu, fell from a pallet rack in a warehouse while retrieving personal items and subsequently sued for common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. It ruled that the Labor Law protections did not apply as Barbu was not hired to perform work and was not acting as an employee at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the court found the owner was an out-of-possession landlord without liability for interior conditions, and the pallet rack constituted an open and obvious, non-inherently dangerous condition for which the other defendants had no duty to warn.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Premises LiabilityOut-of-Possession LandlordOpen and Obvious ConditionAppellate DivisionWarehouse AccidentFall from HeightEmployee Status
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation

Plaintiffs Caroline Marks, Maxine Blonstein, and Lois Steward, representing classes of consumers and indirect purchasers of tamoxifen citrate in California, Florida, and Kansas, respectively, originally filed state antitrust and consumer protection claims against defendants Zeneca, Inc., AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca PLC (collectively “Zeneca”) and Barr Laboratories, Inc. (“Barr”). The cases were removed to federal court, and plaintiffs now seek to remand them, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue for federal question jurisdiction under federal patent law, the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, and collateral attack on federal court orders, as well as diversity jurisdiction for the Marks class action. The Court, applying Second Circuit law, concludes that the plaintiffs' claims necessarily depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the motions to remand are denied, and the cases remain in federal court.

AntitrustPatent LawFederal Question JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMultidistrict LitigationHatch-Waxman ActTamoxifenGeneric DrugsSettlement AgreementWell-Pleaded Complaint Rule
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 366 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