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. 2015-1243 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C. v. Metlife Auto & Home

The case involves Acupuncture Healthcare Plaza I, P.C., as assignee of Boris Goldbaum, suing Metlife Auto & Home for first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant had paid a reduced sum, arguing the remaining amount exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule and that one claim was subject to a policy deductible. During a nonjury trial, the parties stipulated to the plaintiff's prima facie case and timely denials. The defendant sought judicial notice of the workers' compensation fee schedule but failed to provide a witness to testify on its proper utilization or evidence for the deductible reduction. The Civil Court granted judgment to the plaintiff, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Term, Second Department. The Appellate Term noted that while judicial notice of the fee schedule is permissible, the party seeking it must provide sufficient information and notice to the adverse party, and the fee schedule alone doesn't prove proper utilization of codes or reduction due to a deductible without supporting evidence.

No-fault insuranceMedical billing disputeAppellate reviewJudicial noticeBurden of proofFee schedule applicationPolicy deductibleAssigned claimsCivil procedureEvidence admissibility
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2012

China Auto Care, LLC v. China Auto Care (Caymans)

Plaintiffs China Auto Care, LLC and China Auto Care Holdings, LLC brought an action against China Auto Care (Caymans), Digisec Corporation, and the estate of Chander Oberoi, alleging various causes of action stemming from the 2011 sale of Digisec's assets. Defendants sought to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' "Business Relationship and Shareholder Agreement." The court analyzed the scope of the arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act. Finding the clause to be broad, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were within its scope, as they "touch matters" governed by the Shareholder Agreement. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, staying the litigation and compelling arbitration.

ArbitrationShareholder AgreementCorporate DisputeMotion to CompelFederal Arbitration ActSecond Circuit PrecedentFraudulent InducementCorporate GovernanceCayman Islands LawStay of Proceedings
References
25
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04470
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Powers v. Plaza Tower, LLC

Plaintiff William Powers was injured after falling through a dismantled catwalk on the roof of a building owned by Plaza Tower, LLC, while installing a window washing scaffold. Plaza had retained plaintiff's employer, Global BMU, LLC, for the work. The Supreme Court denied Plaza's motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Global and granted Global's motion to dismiss the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the accident was due to Plaza's sole negligence for failing to maintain a safe premises or warn of hazards, and that Global and Powers were not negligent.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentContractual indemnificationNegligenceCatwalk collapseBuilding ownerWarning signsDuty to maintainAppellate DivisionWorker injury
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05931 [153 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Caban v. Plaza Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, Richard Caban, an employee of a carpentry subcontractor, was injured after falling from a scaffold when one of its wheels went into an opening in the floor at a construction site. He sued Plaza Construction Corp. and UBS Real Estate Investments, Inc. (construction manager and building owner) alleging violations of Labor Law and common-law negligence; the defendants then initiated a third-party action against the electrical subcontractor, Forest Electric Corp. for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing certain claims against Plaza and UBS, and granted contractual indemnification, while denying Caban's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Plaza, finding triable issues of fact concerning Plaza's supervisory authority and control over the work. The Appellate Division otherwise affirmed, agreeing that there were triable issues regarding whether the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injury and upholding the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Forest Electric Corp.

Construction site accidentScaffold fallLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationAppellate reviewConstruction manager liabilityProximate cause
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1993

Abreu v. Manhattan Plaza Associates

Antonio Abreu sustained personal injuries when a heavy electrical transformer fell on his hand while he was removing a shipping pallet. He and his wife initiated an action against Manhattan Plaza Associates, the building owner, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Although the jury found Manhattan Plaza not negligent, it found violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), leading to a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs based on absolute liability. Manhattan Plaza Associates appealed, arguing that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the object fell from a "miniscule height," and plaintiffs failed to allege a specific "concrete" Industrial Code provision for Labor Law § 241 (6). The appellate court concurred, modifying the judgment to dismiss the complaint against Manhattan Plaza Associates.

Personal InjuryLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityElevated WorksiteIndustrial CodeConstruction WorkAppellate DecisionJury VerdictDamagesNegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2003

Costa v. Piermont Plaza Realty, Inc.

The plaintiff, a cement mason, sustained personal injuries when struck by a falling steel beam at a construction site. The Supreme Court found the plaintiff to be a special employee of Piermont Plaza Realty, Inc., the general contractor and premises owner. The court granted summary judgment to A&J Cianciulli, Inc., dismissing cross claims, as its pump operator was deemed a special employee of Piermont Plaza. Additionally, the plaintiff was granted summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Piermont Plaza Realty, Inc., and Philip Griffin for failure to provide adequate safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the order.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawSpecial Employment DoctrineSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyFalling ObjectsGeneral Contractor LiabilityPremises Owner LiabilityAppellate Court Decision
References
8
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24081
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2004

Matter of Manhattan Plaza Assocs., L.P. v. Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of New York

The case involves Manhattan Plaza Associates, L.P. (petitioner) seeking to annul HPD's decision granting Michael Madden succession rights to his deceased parents' Section 8 apartment. HPD's Administrative Law Judge Helen Levy had denied Manhattan Plaza's eviction request, finding Michael Madden was entitled to succession despite not being listed on annual income affidavits, as he proved co-occupancy. Manhattan Plaza argued that federal law, as interpreted in Matter of Evans v Franco, made the absence from affidavits dispositive. The court disagreed, distinguishing Evans by noting it permitted agency discretion to hold a hearing and that state law generally controls landlord-tenant issues unless explicitly conflicting with federal law. The court found HPD's rule allowing rebuttal of the presumption was consistent with Section 8 purposes, upholding HPD's decision.

HousingSection 8Succession RightsMitchell-Lama LawAdministrative LawEvictionFamily MemberPrimary ResidenceNew York Supreme CourtCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheffield v. Vestal Parkway Plaza, LLC

Eric Scheffield was injured in 2007 when he fell on a grassy slope while accessing a communications vault on property owned by Vestal Parkway Plaza, LLC in Broome County. The property had previously been owned by BRRS Associates and Parkway Plaza, LLC, who had re-graded the area after a road abandonment. Scheffield and his spouse sued BRRS, Parkway, and Vestal for negligence. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Vestal but denied it for BRRS and Parkway. On appeal, the Court found no evidence that BRRS or Parkway affirmatively created a dangerous condition, reversing the denial of summary judgment for them. For Vestal, the Court affirmed summary judgment, concluding that Vestal had no actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition, despite the varying steepness of the slope and Scheffield's fall during rainy weather.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentProperty OwnershipLandowner LiabilityDangerous ConditionEasement AccessAppellate ReviewFormer Owner LiabilityConstructive Notice
References
31
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07024
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Matter of Piorkowski v. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto

Claimant David J. Piorkowski suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2006 during his employment with Pat Forsha Truck & Auto, leading to surgeries and ongoing symptoms. In 2014, he filed a separate claim, alleging a new left knee injury while working for Wal-Mart, stemming from two incidents in September 2014 where he assisted customers. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the 2014 incidents constituted an exacerbation of his preexisting condition rather than a new injury, disallowing the claim. Pat Forsha Truck & Auto appealed the Board's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, citing the Board's expertise in distinguishing between new injuries and exacerbations, and its authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that the September 2014 incidents did not represent new injuries.

Workers' Compensation Law JudgePreexisting ConditionCausation DisputeMedical EvidenceAppellate Division Third DepartmentBoard Decision AffirmedIndustrial AccidentOrthopedic SurgeryIndependent Medical ExaminationWork-Related Injury
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 348 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