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

NYU Hospitals Center v. HRH Construction LLC (In re HRH Construction LLC)

NYU Hospitals Center appealed a Bankruptcy Court ruling in favor of HRH Construction LLC and Curtis Partition Corporation concerning a construction contract dispute for a radiology center renovation. NYU alleged HRH breached the contract by failing to proceed with Phase 2, while HRH claimed NYU obstructed its performance by contacting a replacement contractor and failing to make timely payments. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's findings that NYU breached the contract and its awards for damages to HRH and Curtis. However, the District Court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's holding that NYU held monies due to Curtis in trust under New York Lien Law Article 3-A, concluding no trust funds were established. All other claims by NYU against Curtis, including willful exaggeration of lien and indemnification, were denied.

Construction DisputeBreach of ContractBankruptcy AppealContractual ObligationsTimely PaymentsSubcontractor DisputesMechanic's LienIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party BeneficiaryFrustration of Performance
References
23
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00221
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2024

Bradley v. NYU Langone Hosps.

Plaintiff Nacorra Bradley sued NYU Langone Hospitals and Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC for injuries sustained after slipping on a wet staircase at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) and dismissing comparative fault. It also granted third-party defendant ASR Electrical Contracting, Inc.'s motion to dismiss NYU Langone's contractual indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified the order: denying ASR's motion for summary judgment dismissing NYU Langone's contractual indemnification claim and granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss the comparative fault affirmative defense. The court otherwise affirmed the initial decision, finding that defendants failed to demonstrate dismissal of negligence and Labor Law claims and that triable issues of fact remained regarding Hunter's negligence.

Summary judgmentNegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d)Slippery conditionConstruction site accidentStaircase safetyContractual indemnificationComparative fault
References
6
Case No. 147 AD3d 537
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2017

Ahern v. NYU Langone Medical Center

Plaintiff Michael Ahern, a laborer, allegedly suffered injuries at a construction site when a mini-container's wheel rolled over his foot. He asserted a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.28 (b), alleging the container's wheels were not free-running. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to Cardella Trucking Company, Inc. and the NYU Hospital defendants, dismissing the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal against Cardella, ruling it was merely a supplier. However, it modified the order by denying the NYU Hospital defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding a question of fact existed regarding the mini-container's wheels, thereby reinstating the claim against them.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentDefective EquipmentPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactStatutory ViolationPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Schwenger v. NYU School of Medicine

Claimant, a postdoctoral fellow at NYU School of Medicine, became ill after alleged exposure to a virus while working. He initiated a civil action against NYU, which argued that he was an employee and his exclusive remedy was workers' compensation benefits. The Supreme Court referred the employer-employee relationship question to the Workers' Compensation Board, which determined claimant was an NYU employee. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting arguments of federal preemption. The court found substantial evidence supporting the employer-employee relationship, citing NYU's control over work, method of payment, provision of equipment, and benefits, despite the federal grant funding his salary.

Employer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' Compensation LawFederal PreemptionPostdoctoral FellowNYUNational Institutes of HealthLaboratory ResearchViral ExposureScope of EmploymentJudicial Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ziccarelli v. NYU Hospitals Center

Plaintiff Jeffry Zic-carelli filed suit against NYU Hospitals Center and several individual defendants, alleging FMLA interference and retaliation, improper disclosure of medical information, negligence, gross negligence, and New York City Human Rights Law violations. The plaintiff claimed he was pressured to work during FMLA leave and that his medical records were improperly accessed. The court granted motions to dismiss FMLA and improper disclosure claims against individual defendants but denied dismissal for negligence and gross negligence claims against NYU. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend was partially denied for futility but granted for leave to include additional factual allegations on certain counts.

FMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationMedical Information DisclosureNegligenceGross NegligenceMotion to DismissLeave to AmendEmployment LawWorkers' Compensation PreclusionEconomic Reality Test
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2008

Torkel v. NYU Hospitals Center

Plaintiff, an employee of Rite-Way Internal Removal, Inc., sustained injuries while moving a debris container down a makeshift plywood ramp at a construction site. The site's general contractor was HRH Construction, and the premises owner was New York University. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on most claims and granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. On appeal, the court modified this decision, dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, finding the incident did not involve an elevation-related hazard as defined by the statute nor did the ramp fall under the cited Industrial Code regulations. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for defendants regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning defendants' control over the work site and awareness of the dangerous condition.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Industrial Code 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(f)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR § 23-1.22(b)Summary JudgmentConstruction Site AccidentRamp CollapseElevation-Related HazardGeneral Contractor Liability
References
15
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04623
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Buzzetta v. NYU Hosps. Ctr.

The plaintiff, Salvatore Buzzetta, was injured after falling from an unsecured ladder while performing demolition work at a hospital owned by the defendants. He commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The defendants appealed, contending a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker or if there were differing versions of the accident. The Appellate Division found no evidence to support the defendants' contentions and affirmed the Supreme Court's order.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Safe Place to WorkLadder FallDemolition WorkAbsolute LiabilityRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
7
Case No. CV-22-1860
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2025

Matter of Sanders v. NYU Langone Hosps.

Claimant Ronnie G. Sanders, a utility worker, sought workers' compensation benefits for alleged neck and back injuries from a work accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, citing inconsistencies in testimony and a lack of credible medical evidence linking the injuries to the work incident. Key medical reports, including one from an independent medical examiner, found no causal relationship. Claimant's application for reconsideration or full Board review, based on newly obtained medical documents, was denied by the Board on the grounds that the evidence was not "newly discovered" and could have been presented earlier. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action or abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationMedical EvidenceCredibilityReconsiderationFull Board ReviewNewly Discovered EvidenceCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionUtility Worker
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2010

Turner v. NYU HOSPITALS CENTER

Plaintiff Keith Turner sued his former employer, NYU Hospital Center and related entities (Defendants), alleging racial, color, and national origin discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and unlawful employment practices under Title VII, § 1981, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, following his termination in June 2004. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that Defendants provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Turner's termination, including a workforce reduction and selection of a more qualified candidate for a consolidated position. Turner failed to demonstrate that these reasons were pretextual for discrimination based on race or national origin, or that he engaged in protected activity under Title VII to establish a retaliation claim. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing all of Turner's claims.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLNYCHRL
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Yudong Zhu

Defendant Yudong Zhu, indicted on various fraud and bribery charges, moved to suppress evidence seized from his encrypted work laptop, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation. Zhu, an assistant professor at NYU, purchased the laptop with NIH grant funds and used it for both personal and professional tasks. During an NYU investigation, Zhu surrendered the laptop but withheld passwords, leading NYU to provide it to the FBI. The FBI conducted a warrantless search based on NYU's consent. The Court acknowledged Zhu's reasonable expectation of privacy due to his security measures and exclusive use. However, it ultimately denied his motion, ruling that NYU's consent was valid because of Zhu's signed authorization allowing NYU to inspect its computers for policy compliance, and NYU's common authority and substantial interest as the laptop's owner.

Fourth AmendmentExpectation of PrivacyWarrantless SearchThird-Party ConsentEmployer PolicyLaptop SearchCriminal ProcedureSuppression MotionElectronic EvidenceNIH Grant
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 25 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