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
Jan 06, 1997

Thompson v. Ludovico

The plaintiff appealed an order that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing causes of action under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend his bill of particulars. The court affirmed the order, reasoning that the plaintiff's injury, sustained when a truck crane's boom slipped and crushed his arm, was not an elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) but a usual and ordinary construction site danger. Furthermore, the denial of leave to amend the bill of particulars was upheld due to the plaintiff's gross laches, as more than five years elapsed without explanation. Additionally, the Industrial Code sections cited in the proposed amendment were deemed either general safety standards or inapplicable to the case, further supporting the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentBill of ParticularsAmendmentLachesIndustrial CodeElevation-Related Risk
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alcantara v. Allied Properties, LLC

Plaintiff-workers filed a lawsuit in New York state court alleging violations of the New York Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (NYDWPA) by new building owners. The plaintiffs sought restoration of their employment and back wages and benefits. The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the state law claims were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court examined Garmon preemption, Machinists preemption, and Section 301 preemption. It concluded that none of these federal preemption doctrines provided a basis for removal to federal court. The court noted that the state court should be given the opportunity to construe the municipal law's provisions before federal intervention. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

Preemption DoctrineNLRA PreemptionLMRA PreemptionNYDWPAWorkers' Protection ActMotion to RemandFederal Question JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCollective BargainingLabor Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1199seiu Nat'l Benefit Fund v. Allergan, Inc. (In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.)

This multi-district litigation addresses defendant Allergan's alleged anticompetitive efforts to delay FDA approval of generic versions of its dry-eye medication, Restasis®. Plaintiffs, comprising Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs, contend Allergan engaged in various unlawful strategies, including filing sham citizen petitions, defrauding the USPTO to secure "second-wave" patents, wrongfully listing these patents, initiating sham patent infringement lawsuits, and transferring patents to a Native American tribe to invoke sovereign immunity. Allergan moved to dismiss the consolidated complaints, asserting that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that its actions caused any delay in generic market entry. The court, however, denied Allergan's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that Allergan's aggressive and persistent tactics could have effectively delayed competition.

AntitrustPharmaceutical IndustryGeneric DrugsFDA ApprovalPatent InfringementCitizen PetitionsHatch-Waxman ActMonopolyRestasisDry Eye Medication
References
34
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00945 [202 AD3d 509]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

O'Flaherty v. Columbo

Plaintiff Brian O'Flaherty alleges severe, permanent injuries from an assault by employees of defendant Burgess at a construction site. Plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including TJM Construction, a subcontractor, which then initiated third-party actions against plaintiff's employer, Jackson Installation. Jackson Installation moved for summary judgment arguing the claims were barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions as no "grave injury" was alleged. The motion court properly denied Jackson Installation's motion, finding it failed to prima facie establish that plaintiff's injuries were not "grave." The court also found TJM Construction's argument regarding incomplete discovery on plaintiff's medical condition sufficient to deny the motion as premature. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision.

Construction site injuryAssaultWorkers' Compensation LawGrave injurySummary judgmentCommon-law indemnificationContributionDiscoveryPremature motionAppellate review
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06161
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2022

Cotroneo v. Van Wagner Sign Erectors, LLC

Plaintiff Cosmo Cotroneo appealed an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the falling gang box lid was a routine workplace risk and not a material requiring hoisting or securing under the statute. However, the court modified the order to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding that missing struts on the gang box constituted a liability as they were safety devices. The defendants' arguments regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence for damaging the struts were found to be speculative. Additionally, the court confirmed that the Van Wagner/Outfront defendants were proper Labor Law defendants, acting as general contractors and agents of the owner.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionGravity-Related RiskGang BoxSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceOwner's AgentGeneral Contractor
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06248 [164 AD3d 1458]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Neve v. City of New York

Plaintiff Anthony Neve, a New York City Sanitation worker, was allegedly injured when the seat of a street sweeper he operated collapsed. He sued the City of New York for negligence. The City initiated third-party actions against Johnston Sweeper Company (manufacturer) and Seats, Inc. (seat manufacturer). Following the City's disposal of the sweeper, the plaintiff was granted an adverse inference charge for spoliation of evidence. Both the plaintiff and Johnston Sweeper Company moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, clarifying that the adverse inference charge did not eliminate the plaintiff's burden to prove all elements of his negligence claim, including the defect's existence and causation.

spoliation of evidencesummary judgmentadverse inferencenegligencepersonal injurythird-party actionproduct liabilityappellate reviewmunicipal liabilitysanitation worker
References
4
Case No. 93 Civ. 7146(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2002

NEW YORK STATE NAT. ORG. FOR WOMEN v. Pataki

This case addresses several post-appeal motions in a class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs sought curative notice relief related to a permanent injunction against the New York State Division of Human Rights' 1995 Intake Rules. Defendants cross-moved to dismiss the entire action, arguing a prior Second Circuit ruling vacated all relief. Plaintiff Class-Member Abby Oshinsky moved to reinstate her discrimination claims, and the New York City Housing Authority moved to intervene. The court denied defendants' cross-motion, affirming the injunction against the 1995 Intake Rules was not appealed and thus survived. However, plaintiffs' motion for curative notice relief and Oshinsky's motion were denied, with the latter rendering the NYCHA's intervention motion moot.

Due ProcessClass ActionPermanent InjunctionAdministrative PracticesDivision of Human RightsProcedural Due ProcessEqual ProtectionDiscrimination ClaimsJudicial ReviewAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03329
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2023

Castro v. Wythe Gardens, LLC

The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries after tripping in a gap between a staircase step and landing. He initiated an action against Express Builders, the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6). Express Builders then filed third-party claims seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed a third-party indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified this ruling, determining that Labor Law section 240(1) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) were not applicable to the plaintiff's injuries as they did not involve elevation-related risks or a hazardous opening for a complete fall. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the plaintiff under Labor Law section 241(6), based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) pertaining to tripping hazards. The Appellate Division also reinstated the contractual indemnification claim against Bayport Construction Corp., citing triable issues of fact, and upheld the denial of Express Builders' indemnification claims against Urban Precast and Urban Erectors due to unresolved questions regarding Express Builders' own negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationTripping HazardElevation-Related RiskAppellate DivisionPersonal InjurySubcontractor Agreement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 1993

Hayles v. Patmast Acquiring Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order that granted Creative Bakers, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. Concurrently, the court denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery. The complaint against the employer, Creative Bakers, Inc., was properly dismissed as the plaintiff's exclusive remedy falls under the Workers' Compensation Law. Furthermore, the plaintiff's cross-motion for discovery regarding the inter-relationship between defendants Patmast Acquiring Corp. and Creative Bakers, Inc. was denied. The court determined that the information sought had no bearing on whether the plaintiff could maintain a separate cause of action for personal injuries against the employer.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyPersonal InjuryDiscovery MotionEmployer LiabilityDismissal of ComplaintAffirmed DecisionNew York LawCPLR 3212(f)
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03799 [206 AD3d 451]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Moises-Ortiz v. FDB Acquisition LLC

Arch Insurance Group, Inc., the insurer for plaintiff's employer, RNC Industries, LLC, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied Arch's motion for summary judgment. Arch sought to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims asserted against its insured, RNC. Arch presented evidence, including a neuropsychologist's report, indicating that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff's symptoms were exaggerated, and he could return to work. The Appellate Division, First Department, found that Arch made a prima facie showing and that the defendants failed to raise an issue of fact. Consequently, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court's order, granting Arch's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the claims.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11IndemnificationContribution ClaimsAppellate DivisionNeuropsychological EvaluationPrima Facie ShowingExaggerated SymptomsTemporary Total Disability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 9,736 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