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
Aug 25, 1993

Meadows v. State University of New York at Oswego

Plaintiffs Ms. Meadows and Ms. Smouse, employees at SUNY Oswego, sought a preliminary injunction against the university and several individuals, alleging harassment and retaliation. Their claims stemmed from perceived involvement in a Title IX complaint, which they contended led to Ms. Smouse's non-renewal and pressure on Ms. Meadows. Plaintiffs argued these actions created a "chilling effect" on their First Amendment rights. The court, presided over by District Judge SCULLIN, denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, concluding that an interim injunction would not alleviate the alleged "chill" arising from the threat of permanent discharge, nor did Ms. Meadows's asserted harassment meet the irreparable harm standard.

Preliminary InjunctionFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechRetaliationHarassmentTitle IXEmployment DiscriminationChilling EffectIrreparable HarmPublic Employees Fair Employment Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Severino v. Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc.

Peter Severino, an injured worker, and his wife, Patricia Severino, filed suit after Peter sustained injuries at a construction site in Colonie, Albany County. The site was owned by Schuyler Meadows Club, Inc. and Schuyler Meadows Country Club, Inc., with Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc. (BBLD) as the general contractor. Peter was injured when a ladder he was using shifted and an angle iron fell, striking him. The complaint alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200(1), 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict against Schuyler and BBLD for violating Labor Law § 240(1), dismissed claims against Schenectady Steel Company, Inc., and denied BBLD's motion against Brownell Steel, Inc. The jury found BBLD 20% liable and Brownell 80% liable. The judgment and order were affirmed on appeal.

Construction Site AccidentLadder FallFalling ObjectLabor Law ViolationsDirected VerdictIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 1999

Tworek v. Mutual Housing Ass'n of New York, Inc.

The injured plaintiff, Cezary Tworek, an employee of Fresh Meadows Painting Corp., d/b/a Fresh Meadows Construction Contractors, suffered personal injuries after falling from a defective A-frame ladder while installing a structural beam. The incident occurred in a building owned by Mutual Housing Association of New York, Inc. (MHANY), which had contracted Fresh Meadows for renovation work. The Supreme Court granted Tworek partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), citing the uncontroverted evidence of the ladder's defective condition. Additionally, MHANY's cross-motion for summary judgment against Fresh Meadows on issues of contractual and common-law indemnification was granted, as MHANY's liability was vicarious, and Fresh Meadows was contractually responsible for safety equipment and controlled the work.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityDefective EquipmentConstruction SiteEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Great Meadow Correctional Facility

The decision addresses a habeas corpus petition filed by Robert Reed against Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Reed had been convicted of two counts of first-degree rape in Niagara County, a conviction which was largely affirmed on appeal, though his sentences were modified to run concurrently. He raised four primary grounds for federal habeas relief: insufficiency of evidence, incredibility of witnesses, prosecutorial misconduct, and improper consolidation of indictments during his trial. The court, however, rejected each of Reed's arguments, finding that the evidence presented at trial was constitutionally sufficient, witness credibility was properly within the jury's discretion, no prosecutorial misconduct as defined by precedent occurred, and the joinder of indictments was appropriate. Citing relevant case law, the court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the joinder and that the jury was properly instructed. As a result, the petition for habeas corpus was dismissed, and a certificate of appealability was denied, as the court found no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Habeas CorpusRape ConvictionInsufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityProsecutorial MisconductJoinder of IndictmentsDue ProcessActual Prejudice StandardFederal Habeas ReliefState Court Conviction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. Rosenblatt

Victoria Meadows, a Senior Office Assistant, filed grievances alleging unreasonable work assignments and discriminatory practices, claiming she performed out-of-title work by training a new supervisor. Her grievances were initially denied by the Director of Employee Relations, who found her duties consistent with her title. The IAS court vacated this determination, ruling in Meadows' favor and awarding salary differences. However, the appellate court reversed the IAS court's judgment, dismissed Meadows' petition, and reinstated the Director's original determination. The appellate court found a rational basis for the employer's decision, concluding that Meadows' duties were reasonably related to her Senior Office Assistant title and not out-of-title work.

Out-of-title workGrievanceCollective Bargaining AgreementJob dutiesEmployee trainingAppellate reviewRational basisPublic employmentSenior Office AssistantDiscriminatory practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. PLANET AID, INC.

Plaintiff, Bob Meadows, a 64-year-old African-American and Native-American former trucker, sued his ex-employer Planet Aid, Inc., and supervisors Rodney Carter and Jostein Pedersen, alleging age and race discrimination, FLSA and NYSHRL violations, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, retaliation, whistleblower violations, hostile work environment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted dismissal for NYSHRL, intentional interference with an advantageous relationship, Title VII retaliation, N.Y. Labor Law § 740 whistleblower, and emotional distress claims. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for age and race discrimination, FLSA, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, defamation, and fraud and misrepresentation claims, allowing them to proceed.

Age DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFair Labor Standards ActNew York State Human Rights LawBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissEmployment LawPleading Standards
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2011

Colortone Camera, Inc. v. New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board

Colortone Camera, Inc. challenged the reclassification of its employees from Workers' Compensation Classification Code 8017 to 8018, which resulted in significantly increased insurance rates. The company's appeal to the Superintendent of Insurance, affirming the New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board's determination, was reviewed in this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the Superintendent's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence that Colortone's business was primarily wholesale. Additionally, Colortone sought a declaratory judgment that portions of the Workers Compensation & Employers Liability Insurance Manual were unconstitutional for vagueness. This aspect of the case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for severance and further proceedings, as it was not properly before the appellate court.

Workers' CompensationInsurance RatesBusiness ReclassificationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02569 [237 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2025

Delcid-Funez v. Seasons at E. Meadow Home Owners Assn.

The plaintiff, Edwin Delcid-Funez, suffered personal injuries after falling approximately 30 feet from a condominium roof while shoveling snow, which he was doing for his employer in response to a leak complaint. He initiated an action against Seasons at East Meadow Home Owners Association, Inc., and Einsidler Management, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Both the plaintiff and the defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Supreme Court denied both motions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that triable issues of fact remain regarding whether the plaintiff was engaged in an enumerated activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) and whether his actions constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSnow ShovelingRoof FallPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentLiabilityElevated Work SiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2008

Bovis v. Crab Meadow Enterprises, Ltd.

Plaintiff Gianni Bovis, injured in a scaffold fall while working for subcontractor Picone Energy Systems, sued general contractors Crab Meadow Enterprises, Ltd., D. Kummer Construction Co., and Kummer Construction Co. (collectively, the Crab Meadow defendants). The Crab Meadow defendants initiated a third-party action against Picone for indemnification and contribution, and against their insurer, Sirius America Insurance Co., for defense and indemnification. Picone and Sirius moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party claims, but their motions were denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, an earlier order dated January 18, 2008, was dismissed as superseded by a July 21, 2008, order made upon reargument. The appellate court affirmed the July 21, 2008, order, finding that Picone failed to establish it lacked an indemnification agreement with the Crab Meadow defendants, and Sirius failed to prove there was no possible basis for indemnifying the Crab Meadow defendants.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallConstruction AccidentIndemnificationContributionSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawInsurance CoverageDuty to Defend
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Darowski v. High Meadow Cooperative No. 1

Joseph Darowski initiated a personal injury lawsuit against High Meadow Cooperative No. 1 and Anker Management Corporation for injuries sustained during asbestos removal. High Meadow and Anker subsequently filed a third-party action against Darowski's employer, Asbestos Industries of America, Inc. (AIA), seeking defense and indemnification due to a contract breach regarding liability insurance. AIA appealed an order that denied its motion to compel further discovery and granted summary judgment to High Meadow and Anker, declaring AIA's duty to defend and indemnify. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that AIA's motion to depose High Meadow and Anker representatives should be granted, but otherwise affirmed the summary judgment against AIA due to its failure to procure adequate insurance. The decision also clarified that a recent 1996 amendment to the Workers' Compensation Law, limiting third-party actions against employers, would not apply retroactively to this pending case.

Asbestos ExposurePersonal Injury DamagesThird-Party IndemnificationDuty to DefendSummary Judgment AppealDiscovery DisputeDeposition OrderBreach of ContractLiability Insurance PolicyWorkers' Compensation Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 106 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