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
Apr 28, 1987

Save Pine Bush, Inc. v. City of Albany

This case involves appeals concerning a combined declaratory judgment action and CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Save the Pine Bush, Inc. and others against the Planning Board of the City of Albany and intervenors State Employees Federal Credit Union (SEFCU) and Madison Avenue Extension Office Park, Inc. (MAEOPI). Petitioners challenged the rezoning and site plan approvals for two commercial projects in the Pine Bush area, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Supreme Court annulled the Board's approvals, a decision affirmed on appeal despite the projects' completion, due to the public importance and recurrence likelihood of the environmental issues. The Appellate Division found the Board's approval arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to take a "hard look" at the cumulative environmental impact, specifically regarding the minimum acreage required for the Pine Bush ecology and the Karner Blue butterfly's survival. The court dismissed appeals from motions to reargue, affirming the necessity of addressing the minimum preserve issue for SEQRA compliance.

Environmental Impact ReviewSEQRAPine BushZoningSite Plan ApprovalCollateral EstoppelMootness DoctrineCumulative Environmental ImpactKarner Blue ButterflyType I Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1992

PINE BARRENS v. Planning Bd.

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens region of Long Island. The Central Pine Barrens is a vital ecological area, serving as the sole natural source of drinking water for millions and harboring numerous endangered species, leading to various protective legislations. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's ruling, determining that a mandatory cumulative impact study under SEQRA is not applicable here because there is no overarching governmental 'plan' for development in the region, only general protective policies. The court emphasized that comprehensive planning for this area should be conducted by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as outlined in ECL article 55, rather than through individual SEQRA assessments. It also noted the significant delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, urging legislative intervention to address this pressing environmental concern.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative ImpactPine BarrensSuffolk CountyLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pollock

This case concerns a joint motion for declaratory judgment filed by Jerome Pollock, Jr. Stone Artist, Inc., a Chapter 11 debtor, and the New York State Department of Labor (DOL). Stone Artist contended that a DOL Order to Comply, issued due to alleged unpaid overtime wages, violated the automatic stay in bankruptcy. The DOL argued its action was permissible under the police and regulatory powers exception of 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(4). The court analyzed the applicability of the police powers exception using both the pecuniary purpose and public policy tests. It concluded that the DOL's enforcement action to fix damages for labor law violations satisfied both tests, and an explicit demand for injunctive relief was not required. Consequently, the court ruled that the DOL's issuance of the Order to Comply was properly excepted from the automatic stay.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayPolice Powers ExceptionDeclaratory JudgmentLabor LawOvertime WagesGovernmental EnforcementPecuniary TestPublic Policy TestNew York Labor Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollock v. Wilson

The Supreme Court properly denied defendant David C. Wilson's motion to renew or vacate a prior order that granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court determined that the defendant failed to provide reasonable justification for introducing new facts on the motion to renew. Additionally, the defendant did not demonstrate any misrepresentation in plaintiff Paul A. Pollock's affidavit, which was crucial for the motion to vacate. The court also correctly struck the defendant's affirmative defense, which asserted that the action was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions. It was established that the plaintiff was not an employee of the defendant at the time of the accident, thus nullifying the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentMotion to RenewMotion to VacateMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewAffirmative Defense
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kennedy v. Pine Hill Coffee Service, Inc.

Gerald Kennedy, an employee of Sahlem’s Roofing, sustained injuries after falling from a roof while working on a building owned by defendant James DeMarco and occupied by Pine Hill Coffee Services, Inc. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, arguing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate safety equipment. Defendants contended that a co-employee acting as a 'spotter' constituted a safety device and that Kennedy was a recalcitrant worker for continuing to work when the 'spotter' left. The court rejected the argument that a human 'spotter' is a safety device under Labor Law § 240 (1), emphasizing the requirement for physical safety devices. Finding that the absence of proper safety devices was the proximate cause of Kennedy’s injuries, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Lawabsolute liabilityconstruction accidentfall from heightsafety devicesrecalcitrant workerproximate causeNew York Lawsummary judgmentowner liability
References
7
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24170
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2004

Kennedy v. Pine Hill Coffee Serv.

Gerald Kennedy, an employee of Sahlem's Roofing, was injured on February 5, 2001, while replacing a roof on a commercial building owned by James DeMarco and occupied by Pine Hill Coffee Services, Inc. Kennedy fell about 9-10 feet due to the defendants' failure to provide adequate safety equipment. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), asserting absolute liability. Defendants argued Kennedy was a recalcitrant worker and that a co-employee, Dorian, served as a 'safety device,' and Kennedy's failure to wait for Dorian caused the accident. The court, however, ruled that a co-employee cannot be considered a 'safety device' under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that worker negligence is irrelevant for absolute liability. The court found that the absence of a safety device was the proximate cause of Kennedy's injuries, thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

Labor Law § 240(1)Absolute liabilitySafety devicesElevation-related hazardRecalcitrant worker defenseProximate causePartial summary judgmentRoofing accidentCo-employee as safety deviceStatutory interpretation
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04811 [208 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2022

Murphy v. 80 Pine, LLC

Daniel Murphy, an employee of Empire Office, Inc., sustained a knee injury after tripping over an electrical conduit ('stub up') at a worksite owned by 80 Pine, LLC, and managed by Rudin Management Co., Inc. He and his spouse filed a consolidated action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) against the owners, general contractor Structure Tone, Inc., and various electrical contractors including United States Information Systems, Inc. (Systems), USIS Electric, Inc. (Electric), and Bigman Brothers, Inc. (Bigman). The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Kings County, largely denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to Systems on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and certain Labor Law § 241(6) claims, and dismissing Bigman's cross-claims against Systems. It also granted summary judgment to Electric for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.30, and to the owners and Structure Tone for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Electric regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and for the owners and Structure Tone regarding specific Labor Law § 241(6) claims. The court also affirmed the denial of Electric's motion to dismiss Systems' cross-claim for contractual indemnification and the denial of the owners' and Structure Tone's motion for contractual indemnification against Bigman.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceHazardous ConditionElectrical ConduitWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board of Brookhaven

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island, a region critical for the area's drinking water aquifer and unique ecology. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that SEQRA's requirements for mandatory cumulative impact statements do not apply to this situation. The court distinguished between a general governmental policy of protecting a region and a specific governmental plan for development, asserting that only the latter triggers mandatory cumulative review. It emphasized that a centralized planning approach by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, as outlined in ECL article 55, is the appropriate mechanism for managing development in such a vast and sensitive area, rather than piecemeal decisions through individual SEQRA reviews. While acknowledging the environmental urgency and the delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, the court concluded that the solution must come from legislative action, not by extending SEQRA's existing provisions.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative Impact StatementPine BarrensLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningSuffolk CountyState Environmental Quality Review ActECL Article 55
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2006

Giblin v. Pine Ridge Log Homes, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Martin McClary, sustained a severe eye injury while working on a construction project subcontracted by Pine Ridge Log Homes, Inc. The plaintiff initiated an action against Pine Ridge, which subsequently filed a third-party claim against McClary for indemnification. The core legal issue revolved around whether the plaintiff's loss of an eye, despite wearing a prosthesis, constituted a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, a condition required for third-party indemnification claims against employers. The Supreme Court had partially denied McClary's cross-motion for summary judgment, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff's injury did not meet the definition of "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" as per the narrowly defined grave injury categories. Consequently, Pine Ridge's common-law indemnification claim against McClary was dismissed, while the denial of severance for the breach of contract claim was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryFacial DisfigurementIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentCross AppealsStatutory InterpretationConstruction AccidentEye Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollock v. Trustmark Insurance

Plaintiff Dr. Allan Pollock sued Trustmark Insurance Company for breach of a disability insurance policy and violation of New York General Business Law § 349 after Trustmark ceased payments. The case was removed to federal court by Trustmark based on diversity of citizenship, claiming the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Pollock cross-moved for remand, arguing the amount in controversy was below the jurisdictional threshold. The court analyzed whether accrued payments, attorney's fees, potential statutory penalties, and future payments could be aggregated to meet the $75,000 requirement. The court found that only accrued payments ($55,000) plus reasonable attorney's fees and a $1,000 statutory penalty could be considered, and these did not reasonably exceed $75,000. Consequently, the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and the case was remanded to state court.

Jurisdictional DisputeDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversySubject Matter JurisdictionRemandBreach of ContractDisability InsuranceNew York General Business LawAttorney's FeesStatutory Penalties
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 30 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