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
Mar 04, 2011

East 51st Street Crane Collapse Litigation v. Lincoln General Insurance

This Supreme Court order addresses an insurance coverage dispute stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which led to multiple claims against the property owner, East 51st Street Development Company, LLC. The primary conflict involved insurance companies Lincoln General, AXIS Surplus, and Interstate Fire and Casualty regarding their duty to defend East 51st Street and reimburse Illinois Union Insurance Company for defense costs. Initially, the Supreme Court granted various motions for summary judgment, establishing duties to defend and determining policy priority. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying Lincoln General's assertions of excess coverage and declaring Lincoln General primarily obligated to provide coverage to East 51st Street. Other aspects, such as AXIS and Interstate's duty to share defense costs, and East 51st Street's status as an additional insured, were affirmed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendDefense Costs ReimbursementPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSummary Judgment MotionAdditional InsuredCrane Collapse LitigationPolicy InterpretationInsurance Policy Limits
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1991

Chase Lincoln First Bank v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning the priority of claims to funds owed by New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG) to Anderson Tree Company, Inc. Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A. held a perfected security interest in Anderson Tree's accounts. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 1249 Pension Fund, et al. (the Brotherhood) also claimed entitlement to these funds due to Anderson Tree's obligation for fringe benefit contributions under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Chase Lincoln, determining its security interest took priority because Anderson Tree's work for NYSEG did not constitute an "improvement of real property" under Lien Law § 70, thus no statutory trust was established for the Brotherhood. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the vegetation maintenance performed by Anderson Tree was not a permanent improvement and therefore did not trigger the Lien Law's trust provisions.

Lien LawSecurity InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Property ImprovementStatutory TrustFringe BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementPriority of ClaimsVegetation Management
References
6
Case No. 532936; 532937; 532938
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Paula Cunningham

Claimant Paula S. Cunningham, a public school principal in New York City, filed three workers' compensation claims alleging work-related physical and psychological injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claims, ruling that Cunningham was a pedagogical employee and therefore ineligible for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 3 (1). This decision was affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support that Cunningham's employment responsibilities were principally pedagogical and did not fall under the qualifying hazardous employments for workers' compensation benefits.

Pedagogical EmploymentWorkers' Compensation EligibilityPublic School PrincipalAdministrative DutiesInstructional LeaderHazardous EmploymentsClaim DisallowanceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceOccupational Injuries
References
4
Case No. Index No. 28997/20; Appeal No. 5887; Case No. 2025-00685
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Roque v. 240 Lincoln Place LLC

Plaintiff Antonio Rosario Roque sought summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240(1) claim after falling from a 12-foot A-frame ladder that slipped while he was working on it. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted his motion. Defendant 240 Lincoln Place LLC appealed, arguing that Roque was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, citing his use of a closed A-frame ladder and the availability of an eight-foot ladder. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court found that the defendant failed to raise an issue of fact, noting Roque's valid reasons for his ladder choice and the instability of the alternative ladder.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallWorker SafetyDefendant LiabilityPlaintiff RightsNegligence
References
2
Case No. 535214
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Paula Velez

Claimant Paula Velez appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits related to an alleged work-related back condition. Velez, a housekeeper, claimed her debilitating back condition was an occupational disease developed over time due to her job duties. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge twice established the claim, the Board ultimately reversed, finding Velez failed to establish a recognizable link between her condition and her occupation with competent medical evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting inconsistencies in medical reports and claimant's testimony regarding symptom onset and work-relatedness, and deferring to the Board's credibility assessment. The court concluded that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Occupational Disease ClaimCausally-Related ConditionBack InjuryMedical Evidence SufficiencyWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Division ReviewCredibility DeterminationHousekeeping DutiesDate of DisablementSpondylolisthesis
References
8
Case No. 95-7154
Regular Panel Decision

Lincoln Cercpac v. Health and Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a motion for preliminary injunction and class certification filed by plaintiffs, led by Lincoln Cercpac, against the Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). Plaintiffs sought to compel HHC to reopen the Children’s Evaluation and Rehabilitation Clinic (CERC), which was closed and its services relocated to Morrisania Center due to budget cuts. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or a substantial likelihood of success on their claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Rehabilitation Act. The judge determined that the relocation of services did not constitute discrimination or a denial of benefits. Additionally, the court denied the request for class certification as unnecessary, reasoning that any favorable judgment would inherently benefit all similarly situated individuals.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPreliminary InjunctionClass CertificationHealthcare ServicesDevelopmental DisabilitiesClinic ClosureService RelocationBudget CutsIrreparable Harm
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 1997

McIntyre v. Manhattan Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Plaintiff Maureen McIntyre sued defendant Manhattan Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. for sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, securing a jury verdict of $6.6 million. The defendant subsequently moved to set aside the verdicts or for a new trial, citing CPLR 4404 (a). The court denied the motion regarding liability, finding sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment created by management and the employer's failure to act. However, the court conditionally granted a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced total award of $3,703,000 for emotional pain and suffering, lost wages, and punitive damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesPost-Trial MotionJury VerdictEmployee DiscriminationEmployer Liability
References
32
Case No. No. 14-CV-6449 (E.D.N.Y.)
Regular Panel Decision

AEI Life, LLC v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co.

This memorandum addresses whether a pending appeal in another circuit concerning a jurisdictional dismissal precludes the Eastern District of New York from exercising jurisdiction. The New Jersey District Court had previously dismissed an action by Lincoln Benefit Life Company (LBL) against AEI Life, LLC (AEI) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which LBL appealed. Subsequently, AEI initiated the current lawsuit in New York, seeking a declaration of policy validity and damages for alleged breach. The court concluded that the first-to-file rule is inapplicable here because the New Jersey court never secured jurisdiction. Additionally, a balance of convenience analysis favored New York as the appropriate venue, citing AEI's home forum, witness locations, and the locus of operative facts. Consequently, LBL's motion to dismiss or stay the action is denied, allowing the case to proceed in the Eastern District of New York.

JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionFirst-to-File RuleFinal Judgment RuleChoice of LawVenueDiversity JurisdictionInsurance PolicySTOLI Scheme
References
36
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06470 [188 AD3d 506]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Singh v. Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc.

Plaintiff Balwinder Singh appealed an order denying his motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) claims and granting defendants' motions to dismiss various claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The court reinstated Singh's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(2)) and his common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Manhattan Ford Lincoln, Inc. However, it dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim (predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1)) against Benny & Son Construction Corp. The decision noted triable issues of fact regarding whether the debris causing the slip was integral to Singh's work and MFL's constructive notice of the debris. Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) was found inapplicable due to the accident's location in an open area, not a passageway.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentSlip and FallDebris AccumulationConstructive NoticeAppellate DivisionLiability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Structural Preservation Systems (SPS), was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while performing structural repairs in a building owned by 500 Lincoln, LLC and leased by DHL Express (USA), Inc. The plaintiff commenced an action against both entities, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln and denied DHL's motions for summary judgment to dismiss various claims against it. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's decision, determining that DHL should have been granted summary judgment dismissing all Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against it, as DHL neither directed nor controlled the work. The court also found that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln should have been denied due to triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and the availability of adequate safety devices.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationProximate CauseSafe Place to WorkOwner LiabilityLessee Liability
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 108 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