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
Oct 06, 2009

Lopez v. Allied Amusement Shows, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured at a street fair after riding a slide, alleging that workers hired by a subcontractor of Allied Amusement Show, Inc., applied a slippery substance and failed to provide a safety buffer. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted defendant Allied Amusement Show, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. This decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court found that the defendant did not own or control the slide and therefore could not be held liable for the alleged negligence of the independent contractor, nor was there a nondelegable duty applicable to the defendant.

Summary JudgmentAmusement Ride InjuryIndependent ContractorNondelegable DutyPremises LiabilityTort LawNegligenceAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Commissioner of Social Services

The Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services appealed an order by Family Court Judge John J. Honan. Judge Honan's order required the Commissioner to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and relieved of child protection responsibility, following an incident where a child in their custody was briefly abducted by her mother. The Commissioner's motion to vacate this show cause order was denied by the Family Court. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed the denial, finding no evidence of contempt against the Commissioner. The appellate court also clarified that Family Court lacks the authority to divest the Department of Social Services of its statutory responsibilities for child protection under the Social Services Law.

Child ProtectionSocial Services LawContempt of CourtShow Cause OrderJudicial AuthorityFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewChild AbductionFoster CareStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Managers of the 1235 Park Condominium v. Clermont Specialty Managers, Ltd.

The case concerns an insured's argument to excuse an untimely notice of a worker's accident to its insurer. A worker fell off a ladder while installing a water tank and was taken to the hospital. The insured claimed a good faith belief that no claim would be asserted, based on a phone call to the worker's employer who stated the worker was not seriously injured and would return to work. The court denied this argument, ruling that a single phone call was insufficient inquiry given the severity of the accident. Additionally, the court found that a recent amendment to Insurance Law § 3420 (a)(5), requiring a showing of prejudice for untimely notice, does not apply retroactively to a 2003 policy.

Untimely NoticeInsurance CoveragePrejudiceLadder AccidentDuty to InquireRetroactive ApplicationGood Faith BeliefWorker InjuryPolicy InvolvementAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00297 [212 AD3d 763]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2023

Calle v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a laborer at a construction site, sustained personal injuries after falling into an excavation. He commenced an action against the City of New York, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the City's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the City's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, as he used a wooden cross brace not intended as a walkway instead of provided ladders. Additionally, the court determined that the cited Labor Law regulations were inapplicable or not violated, and the City neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition, thus dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Sole Proximate CauseSummary Judgment GrantAppellate DivisionDangerous ConditionWorker Safety
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grilikhes v. International Tile & Stone Show Expos

Plaintiff, a union carpenter, suffered an injury while dismantling an exhibit at the Javits Center. He filed a lawsuit against Metropolitan Exposition Services, Inc. (MES) and International Tile & Stone Show, Inc. (ITSS), alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Both MES and ITSS moved for summary judgment, which the lower court granted. MES contended that the plaintiff was its special employee, making the claim barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). ITSS argued it was neither an owner nor a contractor, thus not liable under the Labor Law. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against MES, concluding that MES was the plaintiff's special employer. The court also affirmed the dismissal against ITSS, determining that ITSS lacked the necessary control over the worksite to be considered an "owner" for Labor Law liability.

Special EmployeeLabor Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation BarSummary Judgment MotionPremises LiabilityWorksite ControlContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityAppellate DecisionJavits Center
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. ADJ8410804
Regular
Jan 10, 2017

RAMIRO GONZALEZ vs. Mc CALL'S NURSERIES, INC., HORTICA INSURANCE & EMPLOYEES BENEFITS

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation after an industrial injury, who also filed a third-party civil suit. Initially, the parties stipulated there was no employer negligence, but the applicant later sought to withdraw this stipulation after discovering new evidence relevant to employer fault. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that the Administrative Law Judge acted within their authority to allow the issues of employer negligence and third-party credit to be added for trial, as these are intertwined and the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice from this procedural step. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board concluded that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the defendant ultimately prevails on these issues.

Petition for RemovalThird Party CreditEmployer NegligenceLabor Code Section 5313Labor Code Section 5702Good CauseStipulationPre-trial Conference StatementMandatory Settlement ConferenceThird Party Civil Suit
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1991

In re Lenny McN.

The Family Court in Bronx County issued an order on November 18, 1991, directing the disclosure of a social worker's entire casework file to an intervenor-respondent. This social worker was called as a witness by the law guardian for the infants. The appellate court unanimously reversed this order, finding the social worker's testimony regarding prior file use too equivocal to support a wholesale waiver of confidentiality and work product privileges. The court emphasized the protection against disclosure of mental impressions of a party's representative, classifying a social worker employed by a law guardian as such a representative. The case was remanded for a continuation of the dispositional hearing, with further discovery limited unless the law guardian seeks to elicit an adverse expert opinion from the social worker.

Family LawDisclosureConfidentiality PrivilegeWork Product ImmunitySocial Worker TestimonyChild CustodyFamily Court ProceedingDiscovery LimitationsAppellate ReviewWaiver of Privilege
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,320 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