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
Dec 21, 2006

Claim of Cushion v. Brooklyn Botanic Garden

Claimant, an employee of Brooklyn Botanic Garden, sustained an injury after falling on a broken sidewalk in a public parking lot adjacent to her workplace while commuting home. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the case as a work-related injury, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, reasoning that the risk of injury from the broken sidewalk was not a "special hazard" but a risk shared with the general public, thus falling outside the compensable "gray area" of the going and coming rule.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentGoing and Coming RulePublic Parking LotOff-Premises InjurySpecial HazardGray Area DoctrineSidewalk Fall
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06730
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Morocho v. Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold lacking safety railings while renovating an apartment building owned by Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff met his prima facie burden by demonstrating a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the absence of safety devices, and a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation because the movable scaffold lacked safety railings as required by 12 NYCRR 23-5.18 (b). The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLabor LawAppellate ReviewPrima Facie BurdenSafety RailingsProximate CauseWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Oliver Schools, Inc.

The Attorney-General initiated an action to dissolve Oliver Schools, Inc. (OSI) due to its persistent and illegal failure to refund student loans to institutional lenders under the Guaranteed Student Loan program, resulting in substantial arrearages. OSI appealed the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment for dissolution, contending that dissolution was unwarranted without a jury trial and that its due process rights were violated. The Appellate Court affirmed the dissolution, concluding that OSI's conduct constituted a grave and continuing abuse of corporate power that harmed the public welfare. The court found no contested material facts that would necessitate a jury trial and determined that OSI was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard, thus no due process violation occurred.

Corporate dissolutionBusiness Corporation LawStudent loan refundsConsumer fraudPersistent illegal conductAppellate reviewSummary judgmentDue processPublic welfare abuseHigher Education Services Corp. (HESC)
References
34
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08248 [167 AD3d 415]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2018

Barklee 94 LLC v. Oliver

Barklee 94 LLC appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, which dismissed their complaint against Augustus Oliver et al. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to reopen discovery. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding several causes of action time-barred, including those related to building code violations, notice of excavation, and a party wall easement. The court also dismissed a roof wire/trespass claim, noting the wire was installed by independent contractors. Additionally, a claim seeking completion of a decorative panel was barred by the doctrine of law of the case and the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's claim regarding elevator anchor bolts was also rejected due to insufficient evidence.

building code violationsstatute of limitationssummary judgmentindependent contractor liabilityparty wallencroachment claimappellate reviewproperty lawcivil procedureNew York County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1989

Park Terrace Gardens, Inc. v. Bevona

This case concerns an appeal regarding the permanent stay of arbitration between Park Terrace Gardens, Inc. (petitioner) and 32B-32J Service Employees International Union (respondent). The Union sought arbitration over alleged workforce reduction and inadequate wages, claiming violations of collective bargaining agreements. Initially, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner's application to stay arbitration, citing improper notice and time-barred claims. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that the union had waived notice requirements and that the wage claims were continuing violations. Consequently, the stay was vacated, and the matter was remanded for arbitration on both the workforce reduction and wage claims.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Force ReductionWage ClaimsTimelinessStatute of LimitationsNotice of ArbitrationUnion DisputeAppellate DivisionContract Law
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09275 [178 AD3d 1057]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2019

Oliver v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.

The plaintiff, Constance Oliver, commenced a medical malpractice action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., alleging errors during a January 2014 surgery at Kings County Hospital Center and a subsequent failure to timely diagnose and treat an incisional hernia. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding the defendant's expert affirmation insufficient to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding the allegations of delayed diagnosis and treatment and speculative causation arguments.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentIncisional HerniaProximate CauseTimely DiagnosisAppellate ReviewExpert TestimonyBurden of ProofHospital NegligenceKings County Hospital
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07672 [132 AD3d 887]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2015

Matter of Village of Garden City v. Local 1588, Professional Firefighters Assn.

The Village of Garden City appealed an order denying its petition to permanently stay arbitration and granting the Professional Firefighters Association's motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after the Village decided to lay off six bargaining unit members and assign their work to nonbargaining unit volunteers, leading the Association to file a grievance and request arbitration. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, found that the parties' collective bargaining agreement permitted arbitration of these issues and that it was not against public policy. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there was no statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance. The Court also noted that previous decisions had implicitly acknowledged the arbitrability of assigning bargaining unit work to volunteers, and the grievances were reasonably related to the CBA.

Arbitration DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic Sector EmploymentLayoff GrievanceAssignment of WorkAppellate DivisionNassau CountyStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationManagement Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Village of Garden City v. Professional Firefighters Assn. of Nassau County, Local 1588

This case involves an appeal concerning a dispute over staffing recall procedures at multiple-alarm fires between the Village of Garden City (petitioner) and the Professional Firefighters Association of Nassau County, Local 1588 (respondent). The Association filed a grievance seeking arbitration after the Village failed to adhere to these procedures, which were outlined in agreements attached to their collective bargaining agreement. The Village petitioned to permanently stay arbitration, arguing the agreements were not arbitrable, but the Supreme Court denied their petition and compelled arbitration. Upon reargument, the court upheld its initial decision, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievancePublic PolicyRecall ProceduresFirefightersStaffing DisputeMunicipal EmploymentJudicial ReviewLabor Relations
References
15
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03321 [42 NY3d 992]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Matter of Elizabeth St. Garden, Inc. v. City of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding involved a challenge to a negative declaration issued by the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) concerning a proposed affordable housing development on a lot currently occupied by the Elizabeth Street Garden. Petitioners argued that HPD failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts, particularly regarding open space reduction and climate change, under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, upholding HPD's negative declaration. The Court found that HPD took a 'hard look' at relevant environmental concerns and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for its determination that the project would not have a significant adverse environmental impact, despite the study area being underserved with open space.

Affordable HousingEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACEQRNegative DeclarationOpen SpaceClimate ChangeUrban DevelopmentNew York City LawCPLR Article 78
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2007

Cambry v. Gardens

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Lincoln Gardens, from several orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County, in an action for personal injuries. The appellate court addressed motions for summary judgment related to common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200 causes of action. A key aspect of the decision involved modifying orders to grant Lincoln Gardens summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the plaintiff's injury was not an elevation-related risk. Additionally, the court found the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in striking Lincoln Gardens' answer for discovery non-compliance, as the conduct was not clearly willful or contumacious, and thus vacated that part of the order. Appeals from certain orders were also dismissed as superseded or abandoned.

Appellate LawSummary JudgmentLabor LawPersonal InjuryDiscovery SanctionsWillful ConductContumacious ConductElevation-Related RiskStatutory InterpretationCommon-Law Negligence
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 142 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