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. CA 15-00709
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2015

ANDERSON, ROBERT JAMES v. KERNAN, JAMES M.

Plaintiff Robert James Anderson initiated an action against James M. Kernan and Marlene Kernan, seeking damages for an alleged breach of a joint venture agreement. The purpose of this alleged venture was to develop a market for workers' compensation insurance coverage through professional employer organizations (PEO). The Supreme Court, Oneida County, granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that both Marlene Kernan and James M. Kernan made prima facie showings that they did not agree to enter into a joint venture with the plaintiff. The court further found that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, noting that an 'agreement to agree' on a general principle is unenforceable due to indefiniteness in contract law.

Joint Venture AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract LawIndefinitenessAgreement to AgreeWorkers' Compensation InsuranceProfessional Employer OrganizationsCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04373
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

Kohler v. Polsky

Plaintiffs James Kohler and his wife appealed an order from Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning a legal malpractice action. They alleged that attorneys Mark S. Polsky and Polsky, Shouldice & Rosen, P.C. committed malpractice by failing to advise James Kohler of potential personal injury claims. This failure was attributed to an engagement letter that limited representation solely to a workers' compensation claim for a knee injury Kohler sustained in 2009. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the legal malpractice and loss of consortium claims, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants successfully demonstrated that the alleged acts of malpractice fell outside the defined scope of the engagement letter.

Legal MalpracticeScope of RepresentationEngagement LetterSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ClaimPersonal Injury ClaimInformed ConsentDuty of AttorneyProximate Cause
References
8
Case No. ADJ1357786 (RDG 0126731)
Regular
May 10, 2010

MARK JAMES vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY; PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SEDGWICK 14627 ONTARIO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pacific Bell's petition for reconsideration of an award to Mark James. The original award found James sustained a 100% permanent disability due to industrial melanoma, and Pacific Bell argued for apportionment to non-industrial causes. The Board affirmed the finding that the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Blau, was unable to determine the percentage of disability caused by non-industrial factors due to insufficient information. This inability to apportion, not a failure to consult, meant Pacific Bell failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Bell Telephone CompanyMark JamesMaintenance Splicing TechnicianMelanomaPermanent DisabilityApportionmentLabor Code Section 4663Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Dr. Robert Blau
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re James R.

This case addresses a neglect petition filed against a respondent father and mother concerning their child, James R. The respondent mother was found to have neglected James by refusing him shelter, food, clothing, and necessary counseling. A central issue was whether the noncustodial respondent father had an obligation to provide for his child when the custodial mother failed to act in the child's best interest, especially given his knowledge of the child's extreme vulnerability and distress, including suicidal ideation. The court unequivocally affirmed this obligation, ruling that the father's reliance on a prior custody agreement was insufficient. Consequently, the court also found the respondent father neglected James for failing to provide adequate shelter, food, and clothing, though able to do so.

Child NeglectParental ObligationNoncustodial Parent ResponsibilityFamily Court ActBest Interests of the ChildParental Rights and ResponsibilitiesAbandonmentChild WelfareDue ProcessState Intervention
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. James Mechanical, Inc. v. Royal & Sunalliance

St. James Mechanical, Inc., an insured party, initiated an action against its insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, and an affiliated carrier, seeking a judgment declaring their obligation to defend and indemnify St. James in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. This underlying action stemmed from an accident involving a worker hired by St. James for renovations at the Sheraton New York Hotel & Towers. Royal disclaimed coverage, citing St. James's two-year delay in providing notice of the accident, contending it failed to meet the 'as soon as practicable' clause in the commercial general liability policy. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the insurance carriers' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing St. James's complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that St. James successfully raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether its delay in notice was reasonably based on a good faith belief in nonliability, thereby precluding summary judgment.

Insurance coverageTimely noticeDisclaimer of coverageSummary judgmentPersonal injuryDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyGood faith belief in nonliabilityCondition precedentAppellate review
References
15
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05756 [164 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2018

James v. Crystal Springs Water

The plaintiff, Robert James, an employee of Manpower Group US, Inc., was injured while working at Crystal Springs Water premises and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. James then initiated a personal injury action against Crystal Springs Water. Crystal Springs moved for summary judgment, asserting it was James's special employer under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29, which would legally bar a negligence suit. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted this motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that Crystal Springs had established a prima facie case of special employment based on James's receipt of workers' compensation and Crystal Springs' control over his work details. The plaintiff's contradictory affidavit was deemed insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityGeneral EmployerControl TestConflicting TestimonyNew York Labor Law
References
8
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24162 [84 Misc 3d 931]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2024

James Riv. Group Holdings, Ltd. v. Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC

The case, James River Group Holdings, Ltd. v Fleming Intermediate Holdings LLC, addresses a dispute over a stock purchase agreement (SPA) for the sale of James River's reinsurance subsidiary, JRG Re, to Fleming. Fleming refused to close the transaction, citing alleged breaches related to JRG Re's reserves and liquidity, and demanded a $78 million concession. James River sought specific performance through a mandatory preliminary injunction, arguing that Fleming's claims were baseless and contrary to the SPA's terms, particularly a clause prohibiting challenges to reserves and outlining a post-closing price adjustment process. The Supreme Court, New York County, presided over by Justice Masley, granted James River's motion, finding a clear likelihood of success on the merits, established irreparable harm due to reputational damage and operational disruption, and a favorable balance of equities, compelling Fleming to close the deal within 10 days.

Specific PerformanceStock Purchase AgreementBreach of ContractPreliminary InjunctionMandatory InjunctionContract InterpretationIrreparable HarmBalance of EquitiesReinsurance SubsidiaryClosing Conditions
References
29
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
Showing 1-10 of 960 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