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

Sheila C. v. Povich

Sheila C., a minor, filed a complaint alleging negligence against the Maury Povich Show and its staff after she was raped by a limousine driver associated with the show. The plaintiff claimed the defendants' negligent acts, including inadequate supervision and instructions to act provocatively, led to her assault. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the negligence and negligent hiring/retention claims, recognizing a duty of care for minors under supervision. However, claims for emotional distress and negligence per se were dismissed, and the slander claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was mostly denied.

Talk Show TortsNegligent SupervisionChild EndangermentEmotional Distress ClaimSlander ClaimNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionMotion to DismissDuty of CareForeseeability
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Ostroy v. Six Square LLC

This case involves an appeal of an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing a complaint related to the murder of a plaintiff's decedent by an undocumented immigrant named Pillco. The claims against defendants Bradford General Contractors Co. Inc. and Hernandez for vicarious liability were dismissed as Pillco's criminal conduct was not within the scope of employment. Claims of negligence per se under the Immigration Reform and Control Act were dismissed because the decedent was not a protected class. Negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision claims failed due to lack of notice of Pillco's violent propensity. Claims against Six Square LLC, Edward Steinman, Joseph Alpert, and Charles Alpert for negligence as independent contractors were dismissed as the death resulted from Pillco's criminal conduct, not negligent repairs. Negligent security claims against Six Square defendants also failed due to lack of knowledge of dangerous conduct. Finally, claims for reduced burden of proof under the Noseworthy doctrine and punitive damages were dismissed due to lack of evidence of negligence or authorization/participation in Pillco's criminal conduct by defendants.

Summary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityImmigration Reform and Control ActNegligence Per SeNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionIndependent Contractor LiabilityNegligent Security
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Horizon Lines, LLC

Eddie Johnson, a seaman, sued Horizon Lines LLC and the vessel MTV HORIZON CONSUMER for personal injuries suffered after falling through an uncovered hatch on the main deck while working. Johnson alleged negligence under the Jones Act and unseaworthiness, moving for partial summary judgment on liability. He contended that the defendant's violations of specific Coast Guard regulations precluded a comparative negligence defense. The court, presided by Senior District Judge Haight, denied Johnson's motion, determining that the invoked Coast Guard regulations did not apply to an open hatch in the manner argued. Therefore, the court concluded that the conditions did not establish negligence per se or preclude the doctrine of comparative fault. The case will proceed to a jury for determination of negligence, contributory negligence, causation, and damages.

Seaman InjuryMaritime LawJones ActUnseaworthinessComparative NegligenceCoast Guard RegulationsSummary Judgment MotionHatch AccidentVessel SafetyFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Lima v. Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff Neil V. D’Lima, D.D.S., commenced an employment discrimination action against Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc. and its CEO, Andrew H. Boser, III, alleging discrimination based on race, color, national origin (Indian), violations of the NYHRL, ADA, slander per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss several claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Additionally, the slander per se claim was partially granted regarding statements made by Boser to Kerling due to qualified privilege. However, the motion was denied for the slander per se claim concerning statements made by Boser to Glover and claims where Glover acted under the employer's express authority, as well as the NYHRL claim against Boser. The court also exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationColor DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationNYHRLADATitle VIISlander Per SeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
31
Case No. 162 AD3d 603
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2018

Jainsinghani v. One Vanderbilt Owner, LLC

Plaintiff Priya Jainsinghani sought damages for injuries sustained when she was hit by a plexiglass cover from a lighting fixture underneath a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. Defendant Waldorf Exteriors, LLC was identified as the general contractor and was found in violation of the New York City Building Code for failure to safeguard personnel and property. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability based on res ipsa loquitur, citing issues of fact regarding exclusive control over the instrumentality causing the injury. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, emphasizing that a Building Code violation constitutes mere evidence of negligence, not negligence per se, and that an expert's affidavit created factual issues precluding summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentRes Ipsa LoquiturConstruction AccidentBuilding Code ViolationExclusive ControlAppellate ReviewNegligence Per SePlexiglass InjurySidewalk BridgeGeneral Contractor Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2011

Greco v. Communications Workers of America, Local 1104

Plaintiff Joseph Greco, a former Verizon employee, sued Verizon, his union (Communication Workers of America, Local 1104), and three coworkers, alleging common law claims including intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, assault, and libel per se. The lawsuit stemmed from a claimed 'campaign of harassment' Greco experienced from 2002 to 2006, leading to a disability leave and eventual termination. The case was removed from state court to federal court. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff's state law claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Relations Act and were time-barred. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding all claims against both the Union and Verizon either preempted by Section 301 due to requiring interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement or clearly time-barred.

Labor Law PreemptionSection 301Collective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressLibel Per SeStatute of LimitationsFederal JurisdictionWorkplace Harassment
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Reinauer Transportation Companies, LLC

Plaintiff George Brown was injured in July 2003 after falling from a ladder on a barge owned by his employers. He, along with his wife derivatively, commenced an action under the Jones Act and general maritime law, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness due to unsafe conditions. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on liability, finding negligence per se based on a violation of Coast Guard Regulation 46 CFR 42.15-75 (d). Defendants' argument that the regulation did not apply to their 'permissively manned' barge was rejected. A subsequent trial on damages resulted in a $5,299,210.21 verdict for the plaintiffs. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decisions, upholding the summary judgment, the preclusion of defendants' medical expert, the jury instructions, and finding the damages award not excessive given plaintiff's severe injuries including a fractured hip and permanent disability.

Jones ActMaritime LawNegligence Per SeCoast Guard RegulationsBarge AccidentLadder FallPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyMedical Causation
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish

The dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in dismissing a contractor's negligence claim against a town. The dissent contends the town violated Labor Law § 220 (3-a) (a) by failing to determine worker classifications, which resulted in the contractor incurring damages for underpayment of prevailing wages. It asserts that the statute's legislative intent includes protection for contractors and that denying a negligence cause of action leaves the contractor without an effective remedy for reimbursement. Additionally, the dissent argues against dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. It advocates for the order to be modified, denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and granting, in part, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability in negligence, remitting the matter for further proceedings on damages and contributory negligence.

NegligenceStatutory DutyLabor LawPrevailing WagePublic WorksUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentContributory NegligenceReimbursementLegislative Intent
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 3,546 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