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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2000

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. DiPietro

The Supreme Court, New York County, entered a judgment on October 24, 2000, awarding the plaintiff $214,653.62. This judgment affirmed an earlier order from October 5, 2000, which had granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment in an action to recover monies due under a workers’ compensation policy issued to the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff's business records established the defendants’ nonpayment of insurance premiums, and the defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue. An appeal from the October 5, 2000 order was dismissed as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment. The action was also deemed timely commenced.

Workers' Compensation PolicyInsurance PremiumsSummary JudgmentBusiness RecordsNonpaymentAppealAffirmed JudgmentNew York LawAppellate DivisionTimeliness of Action
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 1996

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Donjon Marine Co.

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund (SIF) sued Donjon Marine Co., Inc. for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. Donjon claimed the policy was cancelled effective October 28, 1991, based on an informational letter from the Workers' Compensation Board. The lower court granted partial summary judgment to Donjon and limited SIF's discovery. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the informational letter was not a valid notice of cancellation from SIF and did not meet the strict statutory requirements of Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). Consequently, Donjon failed to make a prima facie showing of cancellation, and the limitations on discovery were vacated, with Donjon's answer to be stricken if discovery demands are not met.

Insurance PremiumsWorkers' Compensation PolicyPolicy CancellationSummary JudgmentDiscovery DemandsStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsPrima Facie ShowingAppellate ReviewSupreme Court Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. Lloyd Gunther Elevator Service, Inc.

Claimant, who established a compensable workers' compensation claim in 2003, also pursued a third-party personal injury action, which settled for $35,000 on September 16, 2010, with claimant receiving the funds on October 5, 2010. The employer's workers' compensation carrier then suspended payments, arguing its credit against the third-party recovery should begin on the settlement consent date (September 16, 2010), while the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and Board ruled it began on the date claimant received the settlement (October 5, 2010). The Board based its decision on the distinction that the workers' compensation carrier was not the third-party carrier, citing Employer: Icon Routing, a precedent the appellate court found did not support this premise. Reviewing prior Board decisions, the court noted that carriers were permitted to take credit from the consent date if explicitly stated in the consent letter, irrespective of whether the workers' compensation carrier and the third-party carrier were the same. As the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for departing from its established precedent, the appellate court reversed the decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlement CreditLien on ProceedsCommencement DateStatutory InterpretationBoard PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousAppellate ReviewRemand
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 5 v. Hudson Valley District Council Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Joint Benefit Funds

This case concerns the authority of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen to appoint trustees to employee benefit (ERISA) funds, displacing previously appointed trustees from superseded local union entities. The International Union merged local entities into a new Local 5 and appointed Emil Parietti, Jr. as its President, granting him authority to appoint trustees. A previously appointed trustee declined to be replaced, causing a dispute where the new Local 5 has fewer than its authorized number of trustees on the ERISA funds. The court found that the International Union has the ultimate authority in such matters and that the continued service of trustees against the appointing authority's wishes causes irreparable injury. While the plaintiffs' specific request for an injunction was deemed too broad, the court determined that the requirements for a preliminary injunction placing Mr. Parietti's designee were met. The court directed the parties to seek settlement and ordered the defendants to show cause why such a preliminary injunction should not be entered.

International Trade UnionsLabor Management Relations ActERISAEmployee Benefit FundsTrustee AppointmentUnion Internal StructureLocal Union MergerPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. ADJ383172 (STK 0200826)
Regular
Nov 17, 2010

ENRIQUE CASTANEDA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed one day late. The defendant argued the administrative law judge erred in applying the Almaraz/Guzman II standards to calculate the applicant's permanent disability. However, the Board found the petition was untimely and therefore must be dismissed, noting it would have been denied on the merits otherwise. The deadline for filing was October 4, 2010, and the petition was received on October 5, 2010.

Almaraz/Guzman IIAMA GuidesPermanent DisabilityFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictional Time LimitWCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5903
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sansone v. Maislin Transp., Ltd.

The Workers' Compensation Board's decision, filed on May 18, 1978, and amended on October 5, 1978, affirmed a referee's ruling. This ruling determined that the decedent suffered from a permanent partial disability from October 22, 1974, until his passing. The Board's finding was supported by medical evidence, specifically Dr. Whitbeck’s C-71 report, which indicated a causal relationship between the disability and the original accident. The appellate court affirmed this determination, noting substantial evidence for the board's decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewReferee DecisionBoard AffirmationDisability BenefitsCausal RelationshipDr. WhitbeckMedical Report
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,067 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