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. 2019 NY Slip Op 04460 [173 AD3d 437]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Madison Sullivan Partners LLC v. PMG Sullivan St., LLC

Plaintiff Madison Sullivan Partners LLC appealed an order that dismissed its complaint against PMG Sullivan Street, LLC and awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants. The plaintiff alleged damages from a joint property development due to delays, cost overruns, bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, and gross negligence by PMG Sullivan. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to demonstrate demand futility under Delaware law, lacking particularized facts to show a 'substantial likelihood' of personal liability for the defendants. Consequently, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting were dismissed. Furthermore, the claim for an accounting was deemed abandoned, and the breach of construction management agreement claim was barred by a waiver of consequential damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, including the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, finding the contractual provision plainly supported such an award to the prevailing party.

Business disputeDemand futilityDelaware lawFiduciary dutyAttorneys' feesConsequential damagesWaiverContract enforcementDerivative actionAppellate review
References
7
Case No. CV-23-1648
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2025

Matter of Ava OO. (Michael NN.)

This is an appeal from a Family Court order adjudicating children neglected and directing the father, Michael NN., to undergo sex offender treatment. Michael NN. and the mother, Leanna MM., consented to a neglect finding after allegations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse by the father. A key condition was for the father to complete a sex offender evaluation. Although the father submitted an evaluation, the Family Court deemed it insufficient as it was not from the named evaluator, was perfunctory, and lacked a crucial section completion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding a sound and substantial basis in the record for not returning the youngest child to the father's care until he obtains a proper sex offender evaluation and engages with recommended treatment. The court also ruled an argument regarding an expired order of protection as moot.

Family LawChild NeglectAppellate ReviewSex Offender EvaluationDispositional OrderBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court Act Article 10Consent OrderMootnessParental Rights
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoisington Ex Rel. Hoisington v. County of Sullivan

In 1992, Nelida Hoisington placed her daughters, Camara and Cyre, with Bernadette and Vincent Gilmore. The Family Court of Sullivan County later declared the children neglected, placing them with Gilmore under the Department of Social Services' (DSS) supervision. In 1994, Camara was severely scalded while in Gilmore's care, leading to a lawsuit against Sullivan County and DSS under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional rights violations and common law negligence. The court granted summary judgment to DSS, deeming it not amenable to suit under New York law. It also dismissed the § 1983 claims against Sullivan County, ruling that Camara's injury was due to negligence, not a constitutional violation, as no "deliberate indifference" was proven. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law negligence claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Summary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 1983Constitutional RightsNegligenceFailure to TrainDeliberate IndifferenceFoster CareChild ProtectionMunicipal LiabilityPendent Jurisdiction
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael B.

This appeal concerns six-year-old Michael B., born with cocaine toxicology and placed in foster care with his foster parents (appellant foster mother and Quintín L.). Following a prior reversal by the Appellate Division, which mandated a best-interests hearing, the Family Court awarded custody to Michael's natural father. The Appellate Division now reverses this decision, finding that the child's best interests are served by awarding custody to the foster parents. The court cited the child's strong bond with his foster parents, the natural father's deficient parenting, lack of emotional support, and potential for emotional and physical harm. The case is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the father's visitation rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyBest Interests of ChildFoster CareChild NeglectPsychological EvaluationFamily LawAppellate ReviewParental FitnessVisitation Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 1980

Sullivan v. Held

John Sullivan, a 34-year-old foreman, was severely injured after falling from a scaffold while repairing the brick facing of a building. Plaintiffs argued successfully under Labor Law section 240, an absolute liability statute, that the accident was caused by a defective scaffold rope. The defendant and third-party defendant, Nier Sheet Metal Roofing, appealed a jury verdict awarding John Sullivan $1,100,000 for personal injuries and $100,000 for a derivative action. Nier contended that evidence regarding a safety belt was improperly excluded, that comparative negligence (CPLR 1411) should apply to Labor Law § 240 actions, and that the damages were excessive. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the judgment, rejecting all three contentions and upholding the absolute liability principle under Labor Law § 240.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceJury VerdictDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Worker
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hart v. Sullivan

Plaintiff June Hart appealed an order denying a motion to dismiss her complaint against P & C Food Markets, Inc., and two managerial employees, Kenneth Sullivan and Mike Buker. Hart alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress due to sexual advances by Sullivan and Buker, and sex discrimination by the corporate defendant under Executive Law § 296. She also included a derivative claim for her husband. The court modified the order, dismissing the intentional tort claim against the employer due to the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provision, as no willful act by the employer was alleged. The husband's derivative claim was also barred. Furthermore, the sex discrimination claim against the employer was dismissed because respondeat superior does not apply in such cases without allegations of the employer's knowledge or acquiescence.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRespondeat SuperiorDerivative ClaimsMotion to DismissManagerial LiabilityCivil Rights ViolationsExecutive Law
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04590 [162 AD3d 950]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Sullivan v. New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y.

John Sullivan sued New York Athletic Club of City of New York (NYAC) and Talisen Construction Corporation (Talisen) for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence, sustained while carrying a heavy beam down stairs during a bathroom renovation. Talisen and NYAC sought indemnification from Premier Woodcraft, Ltd. (Premier), Sullivan's employer and a subcontractor. The Supreme Court denied various summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting Premier's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and contractual indemnification claims (except for defense costs). The court also granted Talisen's cross-motion for defense costs against Premier, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Sullivan on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, finding his injury was not caused by an elevation-related hazard, and for both parties regarding breach of insurance agreements due to unresolved factual issues.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related HazardContractual IndemnificationBreach of Agreement to Procure InsuranceSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
17
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07702
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2018

Findlater v. Catering by Michael Schick, Inc.

The plaintiff, Christopher Findlater, sued Catering by Michael Schick, Inc., for personal injuries sustained when a food rack fell on him. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, claiming Findlater was an employee. Findlater cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting defendant's negligence and his status as an independent contractor. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion and granted Findlater's cross-motion, concluding he was an independent contractor. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, finding that the question of Findlater's employment status created a factual dispute that must be resolved by the Workers' Compensation Board. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's determination of negligence against Catering by Michael Schick, Inc. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for new determinations pending the Board's decision.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawIndependent Contractor StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceAppellate ReviewRemittalEmployment LawFactual DisputeExclusivity Provisions
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sullivan v. Harnisch

This dissenting opinion, penned by Chief Judge Lippman, argues against the majority's decision, which he believes unduly narrows the Wieder exception to at-will employment. Lippman contends that compliance officers in the financial services industry, like the plaintiff Sullivan, deserve protection from retaliatory termination for performing their statutorily mandated duties, similar to attorneys in law firms. He highlights the dangers of unchecked abuses in financial schemes, citing the Madoff scandal, and warns that the majority's ruling could facilitate fraud by discouraging compliance officers from reporting illegal and unethical behavior. The dissent asserts that the common law, through the Wieder exception, should provide this protection without needing new statutory remedies, and that the order should be reversed to reinstate the plaintiff's cause of action.

whistleblower protectionat-will employmentcompliance officersfinancial services industrysecurities lawMadoff scandalprofessional ethicscorporate governanceretaliatory terminationinvestment advisers
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 816 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