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. ADJ9906817 ADJ9850975
Regular
May 16, 2019

ALEXANDER MARTINEZ RODRIGUEZ vs. SUPERCENTER CONCEPTS, INC, D/B/A SUPERIOR GROCERS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE, administered by HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, NUMERO UNO ACQUISITIONS, LLC D/B/A NUMERO UNO MARKET, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Superior Grocers sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release for applicant's claimed injuries. They argued the settlement failed to name all employers, did not account for prior disability payments, and omitted a fee hold for attorney splits. The Board dismissed the petition as premature because a trial is scheduled for May 22, 2019, where these issues can be properly addressed with evidence and testimony. Therefore, the Board found it lacked sufficient information to rule on the reconsideration request at this time.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeSet Aside OrderIndemnity AdvancesFee Split AgreementMultiple Body PartsMeat CutterSuperior Grocers
References
1
Case No. 6784-17
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2018

Vincent Crisafulli Testamentary Trust v. AAI Acquisition, LLC

Plaintiff Vincent Crisafulli Testamentary Trust brought an action against AAI Acquisition, LLC and United Electric Power, Inc. to enforce the terms of an alleged commercial lease and guarantee. Plaintiff sought to recover money damages for breach of a Letter Agreement and a Guaranty, and also under an assumed Lease. The Supreme Court, Albany County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, finding the Letter Agreement a valid and binding contract and awarding $193,350.23 in damages. However, the motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action (breach of Guaranty) was denied, as the court found the record insufficiently developed to establish United Inc.'s liability. The third cause of action, concerning the assumed Lease, was dismissed because the Letter Agreement superseded the original Lease.

Contract LawCommercial LeaseSummary Judgment MotionBreach of ContractGuaranty AgreementStatute of FraudsCondition PrecedentDamages AwardCounsel FeesCorporate Liability
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2003

Peycke v. Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of DSA Community Publishing, was allegedly injured after a slip and fall on ice in an office parking lot. She initiated an action for personal injuries against Newport Media Acquisition II, Inc., the building owner, and A. Ciesinski Snow Plowing, Inc., the company responsible for snow removal. The Supreme Court denied Newport's motion for summary judgment but granted A. Ciesinski's cross-motion. On appeal, the cross-appeal by the plaintiff was dismissed. The appellate court modified the order, affirming the denial of summary judgment for Newport but denying A. Ciesinski's motion to dismiss Newport's cross-claim for indemnification, citing triable issues of fact.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentCross ClaimsIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation DefenseTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewNegligenceBuilding Owner Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamberson v. Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Lamberson, a Caucasian male, sued his employer, Six West Retail Acquisition Inc., and individuals Sheldon Solow and Jeffery Jacobs, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law. Lamberson claimed he was unlawfully discharged after complaining about the reassignment of an African-American employee, Derrick Caver, from a public-facing role due to his appearance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamberson was fired for poor managerial judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding Lamberson, as a Caucasian, was not a member of a protected class and failed to show a hostile work environment or infringement on his right to interracial association. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, ruling that Lamberson raised a triable issue as to whether his complaints about Caver's reassignment were protected activity and if there was a causal connection to his discharge. Consequently, retaliation claims against Six West, Solow, and Jacobs survive.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawUnlawful DischargeSummary JudgmentManagerial DutiesEmployee ReassignmentHostile Work Environment
References
43
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02363
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2022

Lewis v. 96 Wythe Acquisition LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal in a personal injury case where plaintiff William Lewis was struck by an unsecured metal beam at a construction site. The lower court had granted Lewis summary judgment on his common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) claims. However, the appellate court modified this decision, denying Lewis's motion for summary judgment. This denial was based on inconsistent deposition testimonies from Lewis regarding how the accident occurred, creating a triable issue of fact. Additionally, the court conditionally granted defendants 96 Wythe Acquisition LLC and Dimyon Development Corp.'s motion for summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against All Island Masonry & Concrete, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentFactual DisputeWitness CredibilitySafety Device Failure
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00019 [190 AD3d 422]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2021

Lemache v. MIP One Wall St. Acquisition, LLC

Plaintiff Luis Lemache was injured when a pipe rolled onto his foot while relocating a concrete planter at a construction site. He sued MIP One Wall Street Acquisition, LLC and Gilbane Residential Construction, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied plaintiff's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but modified the order, denying defendants' motion with respect to the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. The court found a triable issue of fact as to whether Gilbane Residential Construction exercised supervisory control over the work, particularly regarding safety standards and the use of licensed Bobcat operators.

Summary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Construction AccidentSupervisory ControlTriable Issue of FactAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkForeman
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03799 [206 AD3d 451]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Moises-Ortiz v. FDB Acquisition LLC

Arch Insurance Group, Inc., the insurer for plaintiff's employer, RNC Industries, LLC, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied Arch's motion for summary judgment. Arch sought to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims asserted against its insured, RNC. Arch presented evidence, including a neuropsychologist's report, indicating that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff's symptoms were exaggerated, and he could return to work. The Appellate Division, First Department, found that Arch made a prima facie showing and that the defendants failed to raise an issue of fact. Consequently, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court's order, granting Arch's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the claims.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11IndemnificationContribution ClaimsAppellate DivisionNeuropsychological EvaluationPrima Facie ShowingExaggerated SymptomsTemporary Total Disability
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00739 [224 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2024

Hasan v. Terrace Acquisitions II, LLC

This case addresses the retroactivity of the repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA). Plaintiff, representing the estate of a deceased nursing home resident, sued the defendant nursing home for negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death related to COVID-19. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, which the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed. The court held that the repeal of the EDTPA, which previously granted immunity to healthcare facilities during the pandemic, was not retroactive. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to immunity for actions that occurred while the EDTPA was in effect. Additionally, the court found that the defendant successfully defended against the gross negligence claim, demonstrating preparatory steps to prevent infections and adherence to Department of Health policies.

Retroactivity of statute repealEmergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA)COVID-19 immunityNursing home liabilityGross negligence defenseStatutory interpretationPublic Health LawAppellate reviewWrongful death claimNegligence claim
References
15
Case No. ADJ6436224
Regular
Dec 13, 2016

SALVADOR BAIRES vs. NUMERO UNO MARKET, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Salvador Baires's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order that only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the applicant is eventually issued. Finally, the applicant's attorney was reminded to include their state bar number on future filings.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colonial Acquisition Partnership v. Colonial at Lynnfield, Inc.

This case arises from an unconsummated joint venture between defendant Colonial at Lynnfield, Inc. and plaintiff Colonial Acquisition Partnership (CAP) regarding the sale of limited partnership units for the Colonial Hilton Inn. Plaintiffs alleged federal securities law violations and common law fraud against the defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds including the statute of limitations and res judicata. The court determined that the plaintiffs' federal securities law claim was not time-barred under New York's borrowing statute, applying the 'place of injury' test. However, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on res judicata, finding that a prior Massachusetts action, which concluded with a final judgment against parties in privity with the current plaintiffs and involved the same factual predicate, precluded the federal claim. With the federal claims dismissed, the court also dismissed the remaining state law claims due to a lack of pendent jurisdiction.

Securities LawJoint VentureFraudBreach of ContractRes JudicataStatute of LimitationsPendent JurisdictionPartnership LawCorporate DisputeCivil Procedure
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 61 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