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. No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Clifton Park Apartments v. New York State Division of Human Rights

CityVision, a non-profit, filed a discrimination complaint against Pine Ridge Apartments with the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR). After DHR dismissed the initial complaint, Pine Ridge's attorney sent a letter to CityVision and employee Leigh Renner threatening litigation for "false, fraudulent and libelous" allegations. In response, CityVision and Renner filed a retaliation complaint, which DHR upheld, finding the letter to be an adverse action. The Appellate Division annulled DHR's determination, concluding that the letter did not constitute adverse action and DHR improperly shifted the burden regarding protected activity. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that a threat of litigation can indeed constitute adverse action under the Human Rights Law, supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court remitted the matter to DHR for proper analysis of the "protected activity" element, as DHR had improperly shifted the burden of proof.

Retaliation claimHuman Rights LawAdverse actionThreat of litigationFamilial status discriminationBurden of proofProtected activityHousing discriminationAppellate reviewAdministrative law
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05301 [163 AD3d 805]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2018

Matter of 35 Jackson House Apts. Corp. v. Yaworski

The landlord, 35 Jackson House Apartments Corporation, initiated a summary holdover proceeding against shareholder Monika Yaworski due to unauthorized apartment renovations. A settlement stipulated that Yaworski provide details of licensed workers for inspection and compliance. Despite multiple extensions, Yaworski failed to meet these material terms. Consequently, the Civil Court granted the landlord's motion for a warrant of eviction, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Term. The Appellate Division, Second Department, further affirmed this outcome, concluding that Yaworski's repeated non-compliance constituted a substantial breach, not a de minimis default.

holdover proceedingstipulation of settlementwarrant of evictionunauthorized renovationslandlord-tenant lawcontractual breachappellate reviewdefault judgmentproperty lawjudicial discretion
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01870 [192 AD3d 607]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Shala v. Park Regis Apt. Corp.

Plaintiff Sahit Shala was injured while renovating an apartment in a cooperative building owned by Park Regis Apartment Corporation. Park Regis, acting as third-party plaintiff, moved for summary judgment on its claims for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance against ASA Building Maintenance, Inc., plaintiff's employer and the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court initially granted Park Regis's motion and denied ASA's. The Appellate Division modified the order, acknowledging that ASA was bound by an alteration agreement requiring indemnification and insurance procurement. However, it found issues of fact precluding summary judgment for both parties on the contractual indemnification and breach of contract claims. Additionally, the court granted ASA's motion to dismiss Park Regis's common-law indemnification and contribution claims, as Park Regis failed to address whether the plaintiff sustained a grave injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Contractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceSummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryAlteration AgreementAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05458 [163 AD3d 943]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2018

Kusayev v. Sussex Apts. Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, a delivery truck driver, sustained personal injuries while delivering building materials to an apartment building when he fell after pulling a hand truck up a four-inch step. He commenced an action against the building owner, Sussex Apartments Associates, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. Sussex then initiated a third-party action against the plaintiff's employer, M.S. Berkoff Company, Inc. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Sussex. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the plaintiff was not engaged in 'construction work' under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), and that Sussex did not create or have notice of the dangerous condition, nor did it supervise the plaintiff's work, thus precluding liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawPremises LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceDelivery AccidentAppellate ReviewConstruction Work DefinitionEmployer LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
12
Case No. MON 339411
Regular
Jun 27, 2008

DIONISIO JIMENEZ vs. NUPAC APARTMENTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB has granted the petition, acknowledging the need for further review of the factual and legal issues. This reconsideration is being undertaken to ensure a thorough understanding of the record and to enable the Board to issue a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionReconsideration UnitNupac Apartments
References
0
Case No. MON 0339411
Regular
Jul 21, 2008

Dionisio Jimenez vs. NUPAC APARTMENTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over the proper method used to rate the applicant's permanent disability following a back and leg injury. The defendant contends the Agreed Medical Examiner improperly used the Range of Motion (ROM) method instead of the Diagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) method per the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case to the trial level for further development of the record. This development will address why the ROM method was used and clarify the appropriate rating methodology.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDionisio JimenezNupac ApartmentsState Compensation Insurance FundMON 0339411Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryRight Leg Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jefferson Apartments, Inc. v. Mauceri

This case involves The Jefferson Apartments, Inc. as the plaintiff, alleging various claims including professional malpractice and fraud against its accountant, Mauceri, and its former managing agent, Tribor Management Inc., and its signatory Maryann Caputo. The plaintiff asserts that Mauceri failed to identify unauthorized transfers from its accounts made by Tribor and Caputo between 2010 and 2012. The court addressed Mauceri's motion to dismiss the claims, specifically evaluating the application of the 'continuous representation' doctrine to toll the statute of limitations for professional malpractice. The motion to dismiss was granted for some professional malpractice claims, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, but denied for other malpractice claims (related to the 2011 financials), aiding and abetting a tort, and fraud, allowing these claims to proceed.

Accounting MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineFraudNegligent MisrepresentationBreach of ContractAiding and AbettingProfessional NegligenceFinancial AuditsAuditor Liability
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riegert Apartments Corp. v. Planning Board of Clarkstown

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Clarkstown. The board required the petitioner to pay money in lieu of land as a condition for obtaining site plan approval to erect an apartment complex. Petitioner argued that the condition was arbitrary and illegal, contending that former owners had already conveyed land for flood control, which should satisfy the requirement. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments, finding that the previous land conveyance was for drainage and flood control, not for park or recreational purposes as required by Town Law § 277(1). The court also affirmed that the planning board had the authority under Town Law § 274-a to impose such a condition for site plan approvals. Consequently, the court denied the application in its entirety and dismissed the petition.

ZoningSite Plan ApprovalMoney in Lieu of LandTown LawCPLR Article 78Planning BoardLand UseRecreational LandFlood ControlRestrictive Covenants
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 26230
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2016

Jefferson Apts., Inc. v. Mauceri

This case addresses the application of the "continuous representation" doctrine to toll the statute of limitations in an action alleging accountant or auditor malpractice. Plaintiff, The Jefferson Apartments, Inc., sued Steven J. Mauceri for various causes including professional malpractice, aiding and abetting tort, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and fraud, related to alleged mismanagement and unauthorized withdrawals of funds by co-defendants Tribor Management Inc. and Maryann Caputo. Mauceri moved to dismiss these claims based on documentary evidence, failure to state a cause of action, and the statute of limitations. The court granted dismissal for professional malpractice claims related to transactions prior to June 17, 2012, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, but denied dismissal for professional malpractice concerning 2011 financials, aiding and abetting, and fraud, citing the continuous representation doctrine and sufficient pleading.

Accountant MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineProfessional NegligenceBreach of Contract ClaimFraud ClaimMotion to DismissCPLR 3211CPLR 214Financial Audits
References
67
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05335
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2019

Samper v. 352 Broadway LLC

In Samper v 352 Broadway LLC, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order that denied summary judgment to defendant A-Z Apartment Building Supply Corp. Plaintiff Joel Samper had applied for and received Workers' Compensation benefits under A-Z's policy following an accident. A-Z argued that Samper's claims were precluded by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, as the Workers' Compensation Board implicitly found A-Z to be his employer. The Appellate Division agreed, finding that Samper failed to present evidence disputing his receipt of benefits through A-Z's policy or the employer-employee relationship for Workers' Compensation purposes. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against A-Z was granted.

Workers' CompensationExclusivity ProvisionsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryAccident ClaimsStatutory InterpretationPreclusion Doctrine
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 186 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