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 03797 [150 AD3d 930]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2017

Wadlowski v. Cohen

The plaintiff, Jan Wadlowski, was injured after falling 14 feet from a balcony while performing demolition work at the defendant, Phillip Ean Cohen's, home. He initiated an action against Cohen, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, in addition to common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Cohen's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding Cohen's potential direction or control over the work and his notice of the dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryDemolition AccidentBalcony FallLabor LawHomeowner LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkDirection and ControlPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2008

Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance

In this insurance coverage dispute, IICNA, Romano's excess insurer, sought reimbursement from St. Paul (Yonkers' insurer) and Yonkers (general contractor) for a $2 million payment made to settle an underlying personal injury suit involving Eugene Flood. Flood, a Yonkers employee, was injured due to a cable left by subcontractor Romano. IICNA settled the underlying action without St. Paul's consent, believing St. Paul's policy was primary and Yonkers was contractually obligated to indemnify. The court denied IICNA's claims, finding St. Paul was not bound by the non-consented settlement and had properly tendered defense to Romano. Furthermore, IICNA's subrogation claim against Yonkers was barred by the antisubrogation rule, as Yonkers was an additional insured under IICNA's policy.

Insurance CoverageReimbursementSubrogationAntisubrogation RuleAdditional InsuredIndemnification AgreementLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement Consent
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05147 [129 AD3d 897]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2015

Cohen v. State of New York

This case concerns Fashawn Cohen, a former correction officer, who sued the State of New York and the Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) for employment discrimination based on disability and retaliation under Executive Law § 296. Cohen sustained a work-related hand injury, received workers' compensation, and was subsequently terminated by DOCS for failing to demonstrate medical fitness to return to work. She alleged that the defendants discriminated by not providing reasonable accommodation. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the disability discrimination claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that Cohen's responses to the termination notice could reasonably be understood as a request for accommodation, and the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that they engaged in a good faith interactive process to assess her needs and the reasonableness of the requested accommodation.

Disability DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentReasonable AccommodationRetaliationCivil Service LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationTermination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 1989

In re the Arbitration Between St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company petitioned for a stay of arbitration sought by James D. Brown, Jr. and for a declaration that Richard Faulkner's vehicle was covered by Aetna Casualty & Surety Company's policy issued to Empire Preferred Commercial Operations. Faulkner, an Empire employee, was involved in an accident with Brown while driving his own car for business purposes, despite making a stop to pick up his son en route to a job inspection site. Brown made a claim against the uninsured motorist provision of his policy with St. Paul. The lower court found Faulkner's vehicle was used "in connection with" Empire's business, and this finding was upheld on appeal. The court concluded that picking up his son was not a deviation from employment. Therefore, the judgment granting St. Paul's petition and affirming Aetna's coverage for Faulkner's vehicle was unanimously affirmed.

Insurance CoverageAutomobile AccidentScope of EmploymentNon-Owned AutomobilesArbitration StayDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityEmployee TravelBusiness Use of VehicleDeviation from Employment
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06518 [210 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

Matter of Hoyt (Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Paul Revere Life Insurance Company appealed decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions for claimant William K. Hoyt Jr. and others. The Board determined that Paul Revere's contract with the claimant did not satisfy all seven requirements of Labor Law § 511 (21) and that the parties' conduct was inconsistent with the statutory exclusion, thus establishing an employment relationship under the common-law test. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that both the written contract and the parties' actual conduct must conform to the statutory provisions for an insurance agent's services to be excluded from the definition of employment. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion of an employment relationship, citing factors such as the claimant's work schedule, reporting requirements, and Paul Revere's training and oversight. The decision clarified that a mere 'verbatim inclusion or rote incantation' of the statutory provisions in a contract is insufficient if actual conduct contradicts them.

Unemployment InsuranceInsurance AgentsEmployment RelationshipCommon Law TestLabor Law § 511Statutory ExclusionAppellate ReviewUnemployment BenefitsInsurance Sales IndustryContractual Provisions
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09014
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2019

Paul v. Village of Quogue

The plaintiff, Joseph Paul, a technician employed by CSC Holdings, LLC, alleged personal injuries after falling from a ladder while performing work on a utility pole located on property jointly owned by the Village of Quogue and the Town of Southampton. Paul commenced an action against both entities, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the Town of Southampton's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it, and the plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Town of Southampton did not contract or control the work, nor did it have a sufficient nexus to the plaintiff as it did not own the utility pole or wires. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the motion for summary judgment was premature.

Personal InjuryLadder FallUtility PoleSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law NegligenceProperty InterestNoncontracting Owner
References
18
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 03868 [150 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2017

McMahon v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to Cohen Brothers Realty Corp., thereby dismissing the complaint filed by Michael McMahon et al. The core issue was whether the injured plaintiff was a special employee of Cohen Brothers Realty Corp., which would invoke the workers' compensation law's exclusivity provision as a bar to the lawsuit. Defendant presented evidence demonstrating its control over the plaintiff's hiring, supervision, and work duties, along with providing necessary equipment and materials. Despite plaintiff's attempts to counter this with evidence showing the general employer as the payor and listed employer, the court found insufficient factual dispute to overturn the special employee determination. Consequently, the appellate court upheld the dismissal, concluding that the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law applied.

Summary JudgmentSpecial Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAppellate ReviewEmployment Control TestProperty Management AgreementDismissal of ComplaintLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Rea Express, Inc.

This appeal addresses whether workmen's compensation payments for injuries sustained before a Chapter XI proceeding are administrative costs under Section 64a(l) of the Bankruptcy Act. The plaintiff, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., a surety, made these payments on behalf of the debtor in possession, REA, and sought reimbursement with priority. The Bankruptcy Court ruled in favor of St. Paul, categorizing these as administrative expenses, but the District Court reversed this decision. The District Court held that such pre-petition compensation liabilities are ordinary provable debts under Section 63a(6) and not administrative costs, which are intended for liabilities incurred during the administration period to preserve the estate. Equitable considerations cannot override the strict priorities outlined in Section 64a, and the surety, having been paid to assume the risk, suffers no inequity.

Chapter XIBankruptcy ActCosts of AdministrationWorkmen's CompensationSuretySubrogationPriority ClaimsPre-petition LiabilitiesDebtor in PossessionEquitable Considerations
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

Cablevision Systems Corporation initiated an adversary proceeding against David Cohen (the Debtor) in bankruptcy court, seeking to declare a judgment debt non-dischargeable. The debt arose from Cohen's willful and malicious violation of the Cable Act by illegally distributing cable television descramblers, as determined in a prior District Court action. Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, after declining to apply collateral estoppel due to differing standards of proof, independently found clear and convincing evidence that Cohen's actions constituted a willful and malicious injury. Consequently, the Court granted Cablevision's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $295,392.77 debt non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeable DebtWillful and Malicious InjuryCable ActStatutory DamagesCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentCable TelevisionElectronic DevicesEastern District of New York
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2000

Seward Park Housing Corp. v. Cohen

The dissenting opinion by Justice Friedman argues against the majority's decision to reverse the Appellate Term's ruling, which would have allowed a co-op to enforce its no-pet clause against shareholder Max Cohen. Friedman contends that the majority's overly literal interpretation of Administrative Code § 27-2009.1 (b) disregards legislative intent, which aimed to protect tenants from retaliatory evictions by landlords, not to undermine co-op rules. The dissent asserts that the Code should not apply to cooperatives, and even if it did, the co-op's timely service of a notice to cure and commencement of a summary proceeding should preclude a waiver. Furthermore, Friedman challenges the broad definition of "agent" used by the majority, arguing that security guards and maintenance workers are not agents whose knowledge should trigger the statutory waiver period. The dissent criticizes the majority for rendering the "knowledge" requirement of the statute superfluous and creating practical problems for landlords.

Cooperative LawPet RestrictionLease EnforcementStatutory InterpretationLandlord-Tenant LawWaiver DoctrineLegislative HistoryAppellate ReviewNo-Pet ClauseEviction Proceedings
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 424 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