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. ADJ9022023
Regular
Jul 14, 2014

Katherine Ann Burton vs. MOTEL 6, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration to amend an award. The original award found temporary total disability from July 22, 2013, to November 6, 2013, but only awarded indemnity benefits through October 4, 2013. The Board, adopting the WCJ's recommendation, amended the award to reflect temporary total disability specifically from July 22, 2013, to October 4, 2013. The issue of benefits after October 4, 2013, was deferred.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and Ordertemporary total disabilitytemporary disability indemnityworkers' compensation appeals boardWCJLiberty Mutual InsuranceMotel 6Report and Recommendationamended
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04297 [230 AD3d 721]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2024

6 Harbor Park Dr., LLC v. Town of N. Hempstead

The plaintiff, 6 Harbor Park Drive, LLC, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed its complaint against defendant Angeles Portela following a jury verdict. The action stemmed from property damage caused by water and debris flowing onto the plaintiff's property. Earlier stages of the litigation saw several other defendants, including the Town of North Hempstead, granted summary judgment, leaving only a specific claim regarding mulch placement against Portela for trial. The plaintiff alleged Portela's negligent mulch application increased run-off, but the jury found Portela not negligent. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in evidentiary rulings and that any other errors were harmless.

Property DamageNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsSummary JudgmentWater Run-offMulch ApplicationHarmless ErrorJudicial Discretion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2004

Belleville v. Madame Pirie's, Inc.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1991 and began receiving workers' compensation benefits. After a third-party personal injury action settlement in 1994, the case was closed in October 1998 with no present deficiency for compensation payments. In 2004, the case was reopened due to a possible new causally connected injury. A WCLJ found no compensable lost time from April 1998 to July 2004, authorized medical treatment, and directed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was responsible. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding that the time periods specified in Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (8) were met due to the passage of time without compensation payment in a closed case, and no application for deficiency compensation was made upon reopening. The Special Fund appealed, and the Board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSpecial FundReopened CasesLiability ShiftWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aThird-Party SettlementBack InjuryDeficiency CompensationMedical Treatment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gavigan v. State

Claimant, an employee of Horizon Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., sustained serious personal injuries in April 1989 while working on a State-owned property. He sought permission to file a late notice of claim against the State, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 due to an improperly constructed and maintained rampway. The Court of Claims initially denied two motions but subsequently granted a third, finding sufficient factors under Court of Claims Act § 10 (6) to support its decision, including the merit of the claim and timely notice to a State employee. The State appealed this decision, arguing an abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Court of Claims' order, concluding that the lower court did not abuse its broad discretion.

Late Notice of ClaimState LiabilityOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryCourt of Claims ActLabor Law ViolationsRampway SafetyEmployee InjuryAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber

The dissenting opinion, authored by Staley, Jr., J., argues against the majority's conclusion that contributory negligence was not a defense to a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) at the time of the accident. The dissent contends that subdivision 6 imposes a duty of reasonable care, not absolute liability, and therefore, contributory negligence should be a valid defense. It reviews legislative history and prior case law, emphasizing that the pre-1969 statute, identical in terms of liability definition to present subdivision 6, allowed contributory negligence as a defense. The dissent also clarifies a previous gratuitous statement by the court regarding contributory negligence in Frattura v Cozzolino Constr. Corp. The final judgment was modified, reversing the dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) and the third-party complaint, ordering a new trial on those matters, and affirming the judgment as modified.

Contributory NegligenceLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityDuty of Reasonable CareConstruction SafetyExcavation WorkDemolition WorkSafe Place to WorkStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Capuano v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Philip Capuano, a carpenter employed by Donaldson Acoustics, suffered a back injury on February 26, 2007, after slipping on a sprinkler pipe while installing sheetrock at a construction site owned by Yeshiva University. Capuano and his wife subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), specifically citing Industrial Code provisions regarding tripping hazards and inadequate illumination. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) liability. Defendants appealed, questioning the existence of violations and Capuano's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, and defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact.

Labor LawConstruction Site AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentTripping HazardInadequate LightingIndustrial Code ViolationNondelegable DutyWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parry v. Tompkins County

Plaintiff, a counselor for Tompkins County, alleged unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation after her job duties were changed due to client allegations. She filed a grievance and a complaint under Local Law No. 6. A settlement resolved the grievance, but conciliation efforts for the discrimination complaint ceased in May or October 1996. Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit in December 1997, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 6, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court as time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding the action was time-barred under Local Law No. 6's one-year statute of limitations, as conciliation efforts terminated earlier than claimed and no continuing pattern of discrimination was established.

DiscriminationSexual OrientationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsConciliation EffortsGrievance ProcedureAppellate ReviewTime-Barred ClaimContinuing Violation DoctrineLocal Law No. 6
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landon v. Austin

In October 2008, a plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from a roof while assisting in renovations for a residence owned by the defendant. The plaintiff sued, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendant sought a homeowner's exemption, but the court determined that his intent to renovate for resale constituted a commercial purpose, thus precluding the exemption. The Supreme Court initially denied both the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding a violation due to lack of safety equipment and the commercial nature of the work. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's cross-motion for dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing a factual dispute regarding the roof's slope and the applicability of 12 NYCRR 23-1.24 (a) (1) (i).

Labor LawConstruction AccidentRoofing SafetySummary JudgmentHomeowner ExemptionCommercial PurposeWorker SafetyStatutory ViolationAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 2,637 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