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

Claim of Duff v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Claimant, a property manager for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was scheduled to work at One World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but remained at home. After learning of the attack, he voluntarily traveled to the site, was present when the second tower fell, and subsequently assisted as a volunteer in rescue efforts, sustaining psychological injuries. His initial claim for workers’ compensation benefits was established, but the Workers’ Compensation Board later reversed these decisions, finding his injury not work-related. Claimant appealed the Board's decisions, arguing that the employer's objection was untimely and that the Board erred in its finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board has discretionary authority to review untimely applications and that substantial evidence supported the finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterPsychological InjuryPost-traumatic Stress DisorderVolunteer ActionsWork-RelatednessCompensability of InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewTimeliness of ObjectionDiscretionary Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2006

Taylor v. New York University Medical Center

The court reversed an order and granted judgment to defendants in a sexual orientation discrimination case. Plaintiff's employment was terminated, which he alleged was discriminatory. Defendants, New York University Medical Center (NYUMC) and Ferrara, successfully argued that the termination was due to legitimate budgetary concerns and departmental reorganization, not discrimination. The court found that the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendants' nondiscriminatory reason or prove that discrimination was the real motive, noting that Ferrara was not the decision-maker in the termination. The case was dismissed, with the court also noting improper admission of evidence that would have warranted a new trial.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationEmployment TerminationBudgetary ConcernsDepartmental ReorganizationPretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPunitive DamagesMental Anguish
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feliciano-Delgado v. New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Ass'n of New York City Health Center, Inc.

Iraida Feliciano-Delgado, a nurse at Health Center Family Medical Office, sued her employer and co-employee physicians for medical malpractice, alleging their negligence in diagnosing and treating her Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), the "fellow-employee rule." The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied this motion. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that despite the Health Center offering services to a segment of the general public (union members), Feliciano-Delgado received treatment as an employee, not a member of the public, thereby triggering the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court concluded that the action for medical malpractice was barred.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy DoctrineFellow-Employee RuleMedical MalpracticeSummary Judgment AppealReflex Sympathetic DystrophyAppellate ReversalEmployer Medical ServicesEmployee Benefit LitigationNegligence Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Father Belle Community Center v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This proceeding addresses whether a corporate employer can be held directly liable for sexual harassment perpetrated by its highest managerial employee, even without proof of vicarious liability. The New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) filed a petition seeking enforcement of a determination that the Father Belle Community Center was liable for sexual harassment by its Executive Director, Vito Caruso, against three complainants: Deborah King, Elizabeth Hurd, and Deborah Horvatits. The court affirmed the finding that the Center was directly liable for Caruso's quid pro quo and hostile work environment harassment, and for its Board of Directors' condonation and retaliatory discharge of complainants. The court also upheld the $60,000 awards to each complainant for mental anguish and humiliation.

Sexual HarassmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployer LiabilityDirect LiabilityRetaliatory DischargeHuman Rights LawDiscriminationMental Anguish DamagesCorporate Governance
References
31
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03892 [185 AD3d 780]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2020

Croshier v. New Horizons Resources, Inc.

The plaintiff, Shelly Croshier, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries after allegedly falling on the driveway of a group home owned and operated by the defendant, New Horizons Resources, Inc. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff could not identify the cause of her fall, lacked constructive notice of the alleged hazardous condition, or that the condition was trivial. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was denied.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeTrivial DefectPersonal InjuryFall AccidentDriveway SafetyAppellate ReviewDuty of Care
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prats v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Plaintiff, an assistant mechanic for AWL Industries, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while inspecting an air-conditioning unit at the World Trade Center, a project contracted by defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The District Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leading to a certified question to the Court of Appeals regarding whether inspections of construction work fall under the statute's purview. The Court, distinguishing the case from Martinez v City of New York, held in the affirmative, emphasizing that the plaintiff's inspection was integral to and contemporaneous with broader building alteration work, not mere routine maintenance. The decision affirmed that such activities, performed by a mechanic under a construction contract, are protected under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction WorkBuilding AlterationWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationCertified QuestionNew York Court of AppealsInspection ActivitySummary Judgment Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Hospital Medical Center v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

This case addresses whether an employer's protection from third-party claims under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 is lost when its injured employees are undocumented aliens. Plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center sued defendant Microtech Contracting for common-law and contractual contribution and indemnification, following a judgment paid to Microtech's injured undocumented employees, Luis and Gerardo Lema. The hospital argued that Microtech's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in hiring the Lemas should preclude it from invoking Section 11's shield. Both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division dismissed the hospital's claims, affirming that employee immigration status does not negate an employer's statutory rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the illegality of the employment contract under IRCA does not override the employer's protections under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, particularly as the hospital did not pursue conflict preemption on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Undocumented AliensThird-Party ClaimsContribution and IndemnificationGrave InjuryPreemptionLabor LawEmployer LiabilityEmployee Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keser v. New York State Elmira Psychiatric Center

This case addresses whether late payment penalty provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) apply to reimbursements made by an employer’s compensation carrier for wages paid during an employee's disability, and if so, whether they apply when reimbursement is in a form other than monetary payment to the employee. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, answering both questions in the affirmative. A 20% penalty was upheld against the State Insurance Fund for late reimbursement to the New York State Elmira Psychiatric Center, the employer of claimant Peter Keser. The ruling emphasizes that for penalty purposes, no distinction should be made between awards payable directly to claimants and those payable to an employer as reimbursement, and the mechanics of payment (e.g., accounting credit) do not alter the need for timely compliance with award terms, promoting prompt payment of workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationLate Payment PenaltyEmployer ReimbursementDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationSection 25(3)(f)Compensation DefinitionCarrier LiabilityPrompt PaymentAccrued Leave
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02756 [194 AD3d 421]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Mullins v. Center Line Studios, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the earlier order. It ruled that Center Line Studios, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200 claims because it was not a statutory agent and lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work. Additionally, NYC Production Core LLC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against it, with the exception of contractual indemnification claims, as it was identified as the plaintiff's special employer. A triable issue of fact was found to exist regarding Center Line Studios, Inc.'s potential common-law negligence in creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition.

Labor Law §§ 240(1)Labor Law §§ 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentSpecial Employer DoctrineContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentLadder Fall InjuryPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation v. Aluminum Company of America

This case addresses whether an initial notice of claim for personal injuries against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is sufficient to cover a subsequent wrongful death claim when the injured party dies after the notice is served but before the lawsuit commences. George Andrucki, after being diagnosed with mesothelioma from asbestos exposure at the World Trade Center, served a notice of claim for personal injuries. He died before the lawsuit officially began, and his widow amended the complaint to include wrongful death and survivorship claims. The Appellate Division had ruled that a new notice of claim was required for the wrongful death action. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the original personal injury notice of claim was adequate, as the wrongful death action was fundamentally a continuation of the personal injury claim and the initial notice fulfilled its purpose of enabling investigation.

Notice of ClaimSovereign ImmunityWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaStatutory InterpretationCondition PrecedentCourt of Claims ActUnconsolidated Laws
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 10,179 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