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. 2007 NY Slip Op 31662(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

J Squared Software, LLC v. Bernette Knitware Corp.

The Supreme Court of New York County issued a judgment on July 26, 2007, affirming a prior order from June 18, 2007. This order had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for conversion of a software program, and vacated a preliminary injunction. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action for conversion as the program was obtained under a valid contract and its return was never demanded. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was properly vacated upon the dismissal of the complaint.

conversionsoftware programsummary judgmentpreliminary injunctioncontract lawlicenseecause of actionappellate reviewjudgment affirmedcomplaint dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2009

Claim of DeFayette v. Verizon

The claimant suffered a compensable left shoulder injury in May 2002, and later a right shoulder injury in December 2005. The claimant was initially awarded workers' compensation benefits for intermittent lost time from May 17, 2002, to November 18, 2003, and later from September 13, 2007, to November 5, 2008. However, awards for lost time between November 18, 2003, and September 13, 2007, were denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, a decision that was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that the determination lacked substantial evidence as no prior Board determinations on this specific issue were found in the record. The matter was remitted to the Board for further fact-finding to resolve the issue.

Workers' CompensationLost Time AwardsShoulder InjuryAppealBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceFact-FindingRemittalPrior DeterminationsBenefit Payments
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01881 [215 AD3d 722]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Andrade v. Bergen Beach 26, LLC

The plaintiff, Freddy Andrade, appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on liability against Bergen Beach 26, LLC, for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Andrade was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder at a construction site where his employer was a subcontractor. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Labor Law § 240 (1) was violated and if such a violation was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction SiteLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityAppellate ReviewPrima FacieTriable Issues of FactSubcontractor
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. St. Barnabas Nursing Home

Plaintiff Felicia Pickett Johnson, pro se, brought an action against her former employer, St. Barnabas Nursing Home, and co-worker, Ronald Granger, under Title VII, the ADA, and New York Human Rights Laws. Claims against Granger were dismissed without prejudice. St. Barnabas moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Johnson's federal claims were time-barred because she failed to file within 90 days of receiving her EEOC right-to-sue letter. The court determined that Johnson's filing on February 7, 2008, was beyond the 90-day period, whether calculated from the presumptive receipt date of November 3, 2007, or her claimed receipt date of November 14, 2007 (or even November 8, 2008, based on a fax confirmation). Finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable tolling, the court dismissed the federal claims as time-barred and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Consequently, St. Barnabas's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Title VIIADAEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingRight-to-Sue LetterJudgment on the PleadingsSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities Act
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04739 [241 AD3d 844]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Rivera v. 26 W. 56, LLC

Nancy Rivera, an employee of Alba Services, Inc., was injured during a building renovation project when an HVAC duct fell on her while she was removing demolition debris. She commenced an action against the property owner, 26 W. 56, LLC, and the general contractor, Abeco Construction, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss this cause of action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the HVAC duct required securing and fell due to an inadequate safety device, and also failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injuries.

Falling ObjectDemolition AccidentConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactWorker SafetyHVAC DuctProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2005

Urbina v. 26 Court Street Associates, LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Urbina, an electrician, sustained severe injuries after falling from a Baker scaffold at a construction site, leading to a fractured patella and multiple surgeries. He and his wife, Lucy Nunez, sued the premises owner, 26 Court Street Associates, LLC, the lessee/general contractor, Town Sports International, Inc. (TSI), and the drywall subcontractor, R & J Construction Corp. (R & J), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court's judgment, awarding substantial damages, was appealed, specifically regarding awards for pain and suffering. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, conditionally reducing the awards for past and future pain and suffering, while affirming the grant of contractual indemnity to TSI and Court Street against R & J, based on R & J's contractual obligation to provide scaffolding.

Construction site injuryScaffolding accidentPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLabor Law § 240(1)Damages modificationPain and suffering awardLost wages awardPatella fractureSubcontractor negligence
References
19
Case No. ADJ4566465
Regular
May 24, 2010

THOMAS PINKNEY vs. PETRA NUNEZ, SAMUEL NUNEZ

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a decision that denied his claim for "new and further disability" under Labor Code § 5410. The applicant's original industrial injury occurred on April 15, 2003, with a stipulated award issued in November 2007. The core issue is whether the applicant's condition worsened or new disability manifested between the November 2007 award and the five-year anniversary of the injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case to the trial level to further develop the record regarding the applicant's medical condition during this critical timeframe.

New and further disabilityLabor Code § 5410ReconsiderationStipulated AwardWCJIndustrial injurySpineLower extremitiesTemporary disabilityPermanent disability
References
9
Case No. ADJ9141002 [death claim] ADJ6796445 [inter vivos]
Regular
Jan 16, 2014

RAMON PRIETO (Deceased) vs. APACHE AUTO, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, MEADOWBROOK/STAR INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a previous award. The amendment changed the cumulative trauma period for the deceased applicant's industrial injury to his heart and neurological system from December 2007-December 2008 to November 2008-December 26, 2008. This change was made to reflect the correct insurance carrier's coverage period. The Board otherwise affirmed the original findings regarding industrial injury and death.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boarddeath claiminter vivosindustrial injuryheart/cardiovascular systemneurologic systematrial fibrillationcumulative traumaauto wrecker salespersonZenith Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Via Taxi, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained on March 31, 2007. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) denied coverage, citing the employer's prior policy cancellation due to nonpayment in 2003 and an outstanding balance at the time of reapplication in December 2006. SIF informed the employer in January 2007 that a new policy required debt satisfaction. Although the debt was cleared in March 2007, the employer did not reapply until May 11, 2007, making the new policy effective only from that date. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer lacked coverage on the injury date and imposed penalties under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence for the Board's decision and rejecting the employer's estoppel argument.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageUninsured EmployerPenaltiesState Insurance FundPolicy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumsEstoppelAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,345 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