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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05053 [208 AD3d 818]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2022

Thorpe v. One Page Park, LLC

Lorenzo Thorpe, an employee at a construction site owned by One Page Park, LLC, sustained injuries after falling into a 14-16 foot deep pit. He commenced a personal injury action against One Page Park, LLC and A-W Coon & Sons, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. Upon reargument, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against One Page Park, LLC, citing elevation-related risk and triable issues of fact. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Elevation-Related HazardSummary Judgment MotionReargumentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseTriable Issue of FactProperty Owner Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenman v. Page

Plaintiff George H. Greenman sustained injuries after falling from a roof while performing construction work on defendants' property. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied, and defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint by the Supreme Court, Genesee County. The appellate court modified this order by denying defendants' cross-motion in part, reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) causes of action, and granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court concluded that the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) did not apply to defendant John Page, a developer who rehabilitates homes for resale, despite his residence in one of the apartments of the two-family dwelling where the incident occurred. The court clarified that the exemption only extends as far as its language fairly warrants, resolving doubts in favor of the general provision. A dissenting opinion argued that the homeowner exemption should apply due to the mixed residential and commercial use of the dwelling, adhering to the principle that owners contracting work directly related to residential use, even with a commercial purpose, are shielded.

Labor LawHomeowner ExemptionConstruction AccidentRoof FallSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeveloper LiabilityStatutory InterpretationWorkplace SafetyResidential Property
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2005

Evans v. P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc.

Plaintiff, who was employed by Contemporary Personnel Staffing, Inc. and placed at P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc. (PCI), sustained injuries while operating an offset machine. She subsequently initiated a negligence and products liability action against PCI. PCI sought summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff was its special employee, thereby barring the action under Workers’ Compensation Law §§11 and 29. The Supreme Court denied this motion, ruling that there was a triable issue of fact concerning an agreement between Contemporary Personnel Staffing, Inc. and PCI that might have restricted PCI from employing the plaintiff in that capacity. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no error in the lower court's conclusion.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProducts LiabilityWorkers Compensation LawSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityTriable Issue of FactControl over Work
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Page v. Liberty Central School District

Claimant Angela Page received workers' compensation benefits starting in 2004 for hypersensitivity to fungi, later including multiple chemical sensitivity. In 2012, the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) reversed a finding of permanent total disability, concluding no continuing causally-related disability based on an impartial specialist's opinion. After subsequent attempts by claimant to address her disability status were rejected by the WCB, claimant appealed. This appeal concerns a 2014 evaluation by physician Jeffrey Newton, who diagnosed claimant with consequential adjustment disorder related to her work-place originating condition. The WCLJ found prima facie evidence for consequential depression, but the Board reversed, citing its 2012 decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the 2012 decision regarding no current causally-related disability does not preclude a claim for consequential psychological injury related to prior established conditions. The matter was remitted to the WCB for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealCausally-Related DisabilityMultiple Chemical SensitivityHypersensitivity ReactionConsequential Psychological InjuryAdjustment DisorderAbuse of DiscretionRemandIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Workers' Compensation Board Reversal
References
6
Case No. 529776
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Page v. Liberty Cent. Sch. Dist.

Angela Page, who received workers' compensation for occupational mold exposure and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), sought benefits for a consequential psychological injury. Following a 2012 Board decision that she had no further causally-related physical disability, a WCLJ and the Board later precluded her psychiatrist's (Dr. Newton) reports and testimony regarding her adjustment disorder, citing noncompliance with IME regulations. They also found no compensable lost time. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling the employer's objection to Dr. Newton's evidence was untimely. It further found the Board's conclusion of no disability was not supported by substantial evidence, given that both claimant's and the employer's psychiatrists agreed on the psychological diagnosis, differing only on the degree of disability. The case was remitted for further proceedings.

Occupational ExposureToxic MoldHypersensitivity ReactionMultiple Chemical SensitivityConsequential Psychological InjuryAdjustment DisorderPsychiatric DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationEvidence PreclusionTimeliness of Objection
References
6
Case No. ADJ9733920
Regular
Feb 26, 2020

SYLVERIA VILLALOBOS vs. GIUMARRA VINEYARDS, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision disallowing a photocopy lien claim. The Board found the lien claimant failed to prove they actually provided the billed "page capture/conversion and processing" services, as the records were provided on CD-ROM by the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant issued a timely and valid Explanation of Review (EOR) with a reduced payment, which the lien claimant did not object to within the statutory period. Consequently, the Board ruled the defendant was not liable for the denied portion of the lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderExplanation of ReviewSection 4903.8(d)Declaration of Custodian of RecordsCD-ROMInvoicePage capture/conversion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LM Business Associates, Inc. v. State

Defendant appealed a Court of Claims judgment that found them liable to claimants for conversion and negligent misrepresentation. The case stemmed from the seizure of claimants' computers during a fraud investigation into affiliated businesses, which resulted in the owner's conviction, though claimants were never charged. The seized computers, vital for claimants' businesses, were returned over two years later. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that defendant's seizure and retention of the computers were authorized by a valid search warrant, thus not constituting conversion. It further ruled that no 'privity-like relationship' existed between investigators and claimants to support a negligent misrepresentation claim. Lastly, the court dismissed the constitutional tort claim, noting claimants had adequate alternative remedies in other forums.

ConversionNegligent MisrepresentationSearch WarrantSeizure of PropertyState LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstitutional TortFraud InvestigationWorkers' Compensation LawCourt of Claims
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 31662(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

J Squared Software, LLC v. Bernette Knitware Corp.

The Supreme Court of New York County issued a judgment on July 26, 2007, affirming a prior order from June 18, 2007. This order had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for conversion of a software program, and vacated a preliminary injunction. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action for conversion as the program was obtained under a valid contract and its return was never demanded. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was properly vacated upon the dismissal of the complaint.

conversionsoftware programsummary judgmentpreliminary injunctioncontract lawlicenseecause of actionappellate reviewjudgment affirmedcomplaint dismissal
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 337 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