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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08457 [157 AD3d 133]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

Matter of Save America's Clocks, Inc. v. City of New York

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a decision by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). The petitioners sought to overturn the LPC's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) that would allow a property owner to convert the clocktower of a historic building (346 Broadway) into a private residence, disconnect its unique purely mechanical clock from its mechanism, and electrify it. The clocktower, an interior landmark designated in 1989, houses one of the few remaining nineteenth-century nonelectrified mechanical clocks. The Supreme Court partially annulled the COA, ruling that the LPC's decision was based on an error of law and was irrational regarding the elimination of public access and the electrification of the clock. This appellate decision affirms that ruling, finding that the LPC has the authority under the Landmarks Law to regulate the clock mechanism and to require public access, and that its reliance on erroneous legal advice led to an irrational decision. The dissenting opinion argues that the LPC acted rationally and within its statutory authority, particularly considering the practical limitations of public access and the preservation of the clock's mechanism.

Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC)Interior LandmarkClocktowerMechanical ClockElectrificationPublic AccessPrivate Residence ConversionCPLR Article 78Administrative LawStatutory Interpretation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Save America's Clocks, Inc. v. City of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding challenged the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission's grant of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to convert an interior landmark, the clock tower suite of 346 Broadway, to private residential use and electrify its historic mechanical clock. Petitioners, a coalition of preservation groups and individuals, argued that the COA would unlawfully eliminate public access and alter the landmark's character. The court found the Commission's decision to permit work eliminating public access to be irrational and arbitrary. Additionally, the court determined that the Commission's allowance of the clock's electrification was based on an error of law concerning its authority. As a result, the court annulled the COA in its entirety regarding the clock tower suite, granted petitioners certain declarations, and denied requests for injunctive relief.

Landmark PreservationHistoric BuildingClock TowerMechanical ClockElectrificationPublic AccessCertificate of AppropriatenessCPLR Article 78Administrative LawJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. ADJ19575926
Regular
Jun 30, 2025

MIGUEL ENRIQUE MARTINEZ CASTILLO vs. AROSA HOME CARE, NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that applicant, a caregiver, sustained an industrial injury to multiple body parts while employed. Defendant argued for re-opening the record to present new evidence and contended that the injury occurred after the applicant clocked out, thus not arising from employment, and questioned applicant's credibility. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding insufficient diligence for new evidence and concluding that clocking out did not negate the industrial nature of the injury as applicant was still performing duties incidental to his employment on the premises. The Board affirmed the WCJ's credibility findings.

Industrial injuryCaregiverClocking outCourse of employmentArising out of employmentPetition for reconsiderationReopen recordNew evidenceMandatory settlement conferenceDiscovery
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joblon v. Solow

Richard Joblon, an electrician, sustained injuries from a ladder fall while installing a wall clock at a property owned by Sheldon H. Solow and leased by Avon Products, Inc., while employed by Geller Electric. The Joblons filed a lawsuit alleging negligence under New York Labor Law Section 240(1), leading to multiple summary judgment motions from all parties concerning the statute's applicability, special employee status, and contractual indemnification. The District Court denied the Joblons' motion, ruling that the installation of a wall clock did not constitute 'altering' or 'repairing' a building under Section 240(1), and thus granted Geller's motion on that issue. Furthermore, the court denied Geller's motion regarding special employee status and Avon's indemnification claim against Geller due to unresolved factual disputes. However, Solow's motion for indemnification against Avon was granted based on a lease agreement, while his claim against Geller was denied.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Ladder AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationSpecial EmployeeConstruction vs. MaintenancePremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTenant IndemnityPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Amalgamated Watch, Clock & Time Instrument Workers & Jaeger Watch Co.

A labor union, as petitioner, appealed an order that denied its motion to confirm an arbitrators' award, which was made pursuant to a labor contract with the respondent. The respondent had challenged the award, leading to the initial denial of confirmation on the grounds that certain provisions exceeded the scope of the arbitration issue. The court determined that paragraphs 3 and 5-b of the award did indeed go beyond the submitted issue but did not impact the core merits. Consequently, the court ruled that the award should be modified by deleting these specific paragraphs and, once modified, should be confirmed. The order from which the appeal was taken was reversed, and the labor union's motion was granted.

Labor LawArbitration AwardContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmModification of AwardAppellate ReviewPer Curiam DecisionLabor UnionCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
2
Case No. BAK 0141892
Regular
Apr 22, 2008

CHARLES E. BRYANT, JR. vs. WILLIAM F. RENFROW and CAROLYN S. RENFROW, individual shareholders of PUBLIX MOTORS, INC. dba PRO AUTO SALES AND LEASING

This case concerns whether applicant, injured while helping move a stove at the sole shareholders' residence, was an employee of the auto dealership or the individuals. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant was an employee of the auto dealership at the time of injury. This determination was based on credible testimony that the applicant was directed by his supervisor (and son of the shareholders) to perform the task and would be "on the clock" for the dealership, establishing an employer-employee relationship for the purpose of workers' compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryEmployer LiabilityCorporate VeilDual EmploymentPersonal ActVolunteer StatusCredibility FindingsOn the ClockCorporate Employer
References
1
Case No. ADJ369276
Regular
Mar 21, 2012

JEREMY NEWBERRY vs. CHARGERS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC dba SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY c/o BERKELEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for removal as untimely because it was filed on January 6, 2012, exceeding the January 3, 2012 deadline. Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits. The petitioner failed to request automatic reassignment within the required five days of the November 15, 2011 notice of hearing. The WCAB clarified that an improper "expedited hearing" designation does not restart the reassignment clock.

WCABPetition for RemovalDismissedWCJAutomatic ReassignmentTimelinessPre-trial ConferenceExpedited HearingNotice of HearingService by Mail
References
13
Case No. ADJ11407589
Regular
Jun 25, 2019

RICARDO PENA vs. 99 CENTS ONLY STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's assault in the employer's unlit parking lot arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. The Board found the assault was random and not personal, thus not barring compensation. The applicant was injured shortly after clocking out, and the employer's premises, including the dark parking lot, created a zone of risk. The Board deferred to the judge's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRicardo Pena99 Cents Only StoresBroadspire ServicesADJ11407589Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJInjury arising out of and in the course of employmentEmployer's parking lot
References
19
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03122 [171 AD3d 1429]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of Warner v. New York City Tr. Auth.

Claimant Marcus Warner, a subway train cleaner, was assaulted after clocking out and disembarking a train on his commute home. He sought workers' compensation benefits, which were denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, as they occurred during his commute home and were not connected to his work duties. The court applied the 'going and coming' rule, finding no exceptions applicable to this case, and thus the injuries were deemed non-compensable.

Workers' CompensationGoing and Coming RuleSubway AssaultCommute InjuryArise Out Of EmploymentCourse Of EmploymentNew York LawAppellate DecisionInjury CompensabilitySelf-insured Employer
References
10
Case No. ADJ10362379
Regular
Jan 17, 2017

RANDY RAMIREZ vs. ANDRIAN, INC.; EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged a finding that the applicant truck driver was at work on the date of his claimed injury, arguing the judge's reasoning was flawed. However, the Board found the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof, particularly by not producing definitive payroll or clock-in records to disprove the applicant's testimony. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that it was improbable an employee would fabricate an injury on a non-work day, especially when the employer possessed superior documentation control and failed to produce it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgePost-termination claimsBurden of proofCredibility of witnessesDocumentary evidencePayroll recordsSubstantive liability
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 19 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