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. CA 12-01554
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2013

SMITH, PAUL J. v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY

Paul J. Smith, a plaintiff, sued Nestle Purina Petcare Company (Nestle) for injuries sustained after slipping and falling in a grain silo during a construction project. Nestle then initiated a third-party action against E.E. Austin & Son, Inc. (Austin), Smith's employer. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from Nestle and Austin. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Nestle and Austin on Labor Law § 240 (1) and most of § 241 (6) claims, finding the injury unrelated to ladder use and certain regulations inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims, and the contractual indemnification claim between Nestle and Austin due to unresolved factual issues regarding Nestle's negligence.

Labor LawWorkplace InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityNegligenceSlip and FallGrain Silo
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Starr H.

This is a child protective proceeding under Family Court Act article 10 where Starr H. was alleged to be an abused child, sexually abused by her mother's live-in boyfriend, Paul E. Family Court initially dismissed the petition without stating grounds. The appellate court reversed, finding that Paul E. engaged in digital manipulation of Starr H.'s vagina. The finding of abuse was supported by consistent out-of-court statements from Starr H. to multiple witnesses, corroborated by medical evidence of vaginal abnormalities and expert opinions from a physician and a therapist. The case is remitted to Erie County Family Court for a dispositional hearing before a different judge.

Child Protective ProceedingSexual AbuseChild AbuseCorroborationMedical EvidenceExpert TestimonyFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewRemittalErie County Family Court
References
5
Case No. 535751
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Paul Ryba

Paul Ryba, a claimant, sustained injuries while working on a roof and filed for workers' compensation benefits. An investigation revealed that neither the general contractor, Ryan E. Russell d/b/a Ryan's Home Improvements (RHI), nor the subcontractor, Buczkowski Builders LLC, had workers' compensation insurance. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found RHI liable under Workers' Compensation Law § 56 due to the subcontractor's uninsured status. RHI appealed, challenging the applicability of § 56 to uninsured general contractors. The Workers' Compensation Board denied RHI's application for review, citing its failure to fully complete question 13 of the RB-89 application. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying review based on RHI's procedural non-compliance, noting that Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a, which addresses such defects, was not yet effective.

Workers' Compensation LawUninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityAdministrative ReviewAppellate DivisionProcedural ComplianceBoard RulesStatutory InterpretationRB-89 ApplicationSubcontractor
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 02162
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

Matter of Ryba v. Russell

Claimant Paul Ryba filed for workers' compensation benefits after falling off a roof while working for Buczkowski Builders LLC, a subcontractor of Ryan E. Russell, doing business as Ryan's Home Improvements (RHI). Neither Buczkowski nor RHI had workers' compensation insurance. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Buczkowski to be the employer but held RHI liable under Workers' Compensation Law § 56 due to lack of insurance. RHI appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing § 56 was inapplicable to uninsured general contractors. The Board denied RHI's application for review, finding it incomplete for failing to fully answer question 13 on the RB-89 application. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying review due to RHI's non-compliance with the application requirements, and thus, the merits of RHI's appeal were not considered.

Uninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureProcedural Non-ComplianceApplication for Review DenialStatutory InterpretationThird DepartmentRB-89 ApplicationSubcontractor Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Detrick v. H & E MACHINERY, INC.

The plaintiff, Sherry Kellogg Detrick, sued her former employer, H & E Machinery, Inc., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII, Equal Pay Act violations, and state law claims including the New York Human Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Detrick contended she endured a hostile work environment and unequal pay compared to her male successor. H & E moved for summary judgment, arguing the Title VII and state law claims were time-barred, and the Equal Pay Act claim lacked a prima facie showing. The court granted H & E's motion, finding Detrick's harassment claims untimely and her Equal Pay Act claim unsupported by sufficient evidence of substantially equal jobs, and declined jurisdiction over the remaining state human rights claim.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineNew York Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentTimeliness of Claims
References
29
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,352 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