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 01179 [169 AD3d 527]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2019

Matter of People v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning motions to dismiss various claims against Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., et al. (Northern Respondents) and Joseph I. Sussman, P.C., et al. (Attorney Respondents). The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the Northern Respondents' motion to dismiss Executive Law § 63 (12) and CPLR 5015 (c) claims related to General Business Law § 349 violations but denied it for other claims. The court also granted the Attorney Respondents' motion to dismiss all claims against them. The Appellate Division modified this, denying the Attorney Respondents' motion except for the General Business Law § 349 claim, and affirmed the rest. The petition failed to state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349 as the affected parties were not 'consumers'. The court found that ISO sales representatives acted as Northern Respondents' agents, and both Northern Respondents' and Attorney Respondents' conduct fell within the 'sham exception' to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Furthermore, the Executive Law § 63 (12) claim, based on unconscionable contract terms and targeting vulnerable individuals, was deemed to state a cause of action, and Neil Hertzman was found to have participated in the fraud scheme.

Appellate DivisionMotion to DismissGeneral Business Law § 349Executive Law § 63 (12)CPLR 5015 (c)Business Corporation Law § 1101FraudAgency LawSham ExceptionNoerr-Pennington Doctrine
References
23
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Case No. 534625
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Dante Daly

Claimant Dante E. Daly appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which denied his claim for benefits related to alleged exposure during World Trade Center (WTC) rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations. Daly, a budget analyst for the New York City Office of Management & Budget, was assigned to budgetary analysis for WTC-related operations after September 11, 2001, but did not directly participate in the physical cleanup. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found that his activities were not covered by Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A and thus, the claim was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, agreeing that Daly's job duties as a budget analyst lacked a direct or tangible connection to the WTC rescue, recovery, or cleanup operations, upholding the Board's discretion in applying the statute.

World Trade CenterWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBudgetary AnalysisCleanup OperationsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of ClaimWaiver of DefensesAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial Evidence
References
15
Case No. 13-CV-2622
Regular Panel Decision

Dillon v. Ned Management, Inc.

Plaintiff Dillon accused her boss, Yacov Fridman, of sexual harassment, including inappropriate comments and physical contact. She also alleged retaliation after reporting the incidents, citing docked pay and eventual termination by Ned Management. Defendants, Ned Management, Joe Milligan, Eric Vainer, Polina Vainer, and Yacov Fridman, moved for summary judgment, claiming Dillon's termination was due to lateness. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The ruling determined that sufficient questions of material fact existed regarding hostile work environment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting claims under Title VII and NYCHRL against various defendants, warranting a trial. The claim for sexual assault and battery against Fridman also stands.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIINYCHRLSummary JudgmentFederal Civil RightsIndividual LiabilitySupervisory Liability
References
63
Case No. CA 12-01329
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2013

MULLIN, CARL D. v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, LLC

Carl D. Mullin, an employee of Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a ladder at a Waste Management of New York, LLC facility. Mullin initiated an action against Waste Management, which subsequently filed a third-party claim against Riccelli for breach of contract. Waste Management alleged that Riccelli failed to name it as an additional insured on various required insurance policies, including workers' compensation, commercial general liability, and automobile liability. The Supreme Court granted Waste Management's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order, also upholding the denial of Riccelli's motion to introduce new evidence, deeming it untimely and unlikely to alter the determination.

Breach of ContractInsurance CoverageAdditional Insured ClauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmationThird-Party LitigationPersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLadder FallContractual Indemnity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fisher v. SDAM Management, Inc.

Claimant, a taxicab driver, sought workers' compensation benefits after an accident. SDAM Management, Inc. disputed the claim, denying an employer-employee relationship. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge, and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board, found that such a relationship existed between the claimant, SDAM, and its principal John Lewis, citing Lewis's role in licensing and SDAM's in dispatching. SDAM and its carrier appealed these decisions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's factual determination of an employer-employee relationship should not be disturbed.

Employer-employee relationshipTaxicab driverSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewAgency controlWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeFactual determinationPrincipal liabilityBusiness entityAppeal affirmed
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Penberg v. HEALTHBRIDGE MANAGEMENT

Marc Penberg sued HealthBridge Management, LLC, alleging wrongful termination based on disability and age discrimination, and retaliation under various federal and state laws. Many initial claims were later abandoned. The defendant moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims (ADEA, FMLA, NYSHRL) and counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty and spoliation of evidence. The court denied summary judgment to the defendant on the ADEA, FMLA (retaliation), and NYSHRL claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding pretext and discriminatory intent. However, the plaintiff's FMLA interference claim was dismissed. Both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim and the plaintiff's retaliation claim were denied due to unresolved factual disputes concerning the handling of confidential documents and potential retaliatory intent in litigation.

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment MotionFamily and Medical Leave ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActNew York State Human Rights LawBreach of Fiduciary DutySpoliation of Evidence
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Claim of MacKenzie v. Management Recruiters

In this workers' compensation appeal, the claimant, an office manager for Management Recruiters, sought benefits for injuries sustained in a single-car accident in Ulster County. Her claim was denied by the employer's insurance carrier, arguing the injuries were not work-related and were willfully self-inflicted. After initial reversals, the Workers' Compensation Board ultimately disallowed the claim, concluding the injuries resulted from the claimant's deliberate intent to harm herself, thereby overcoming the statutory presumption against self-injury. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, including accident reconstruction and psychiatric testimony, supported the finding of willful intent. The court reiterated that conflicting evidence creates a question of fact for the Board, whose determinations are upheld if supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationWillful Intent to InjureUnexplained AccidentStatutory PresumptionSubstantial EvidencePsychiatric IllnessSuicidal IdeationAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactMedical Testimony
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fludgate v. Management Technologies, Inc.

Barrington J. Fludgate sued Management Technologies, Inc. (MTI), Winter Partners, Inc. (WP), and Keith Williams, asserting claims under ERISA, New York labor law, and for wrongful interference with his employment agreement. Defendants sought to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for summary judgment on certain claims. Fludgate moved to amend his complaint and for an extension of time. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the ERISA claims, finding Fludgate's employment agreement did not establish an ERISA plan, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, state law claims were also dismissed. However, Fludgate was granted leave to amend his complaint to include claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ERISA ClaimsEmployment AgreementWrongful TerminationSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentLeave to AmendSecurities Exchange ActSeverance BenefitsEmployee Pension Benefits
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 18,695 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