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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06425 [131 AD3d 461]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Power v. Frasier

Joseph Power, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority, and his wife, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when Power was struck by a vehicle driven by coemployee John Frasier in a parking lot. Power had received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The defendants, John Frasier and his father Edward M. Frasier, moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted their motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law provides an exclusive remedy when both parties are coemployees acting within the scope of their employment. Since John Frasier was found to be acting within the scope of his employment, he was immune from direct liability, and his father could not be held vicariously liable.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsCoemployee ImmunitySummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentParking Lot AccidentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powers v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Steve Powers, a former television reporter, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against Fox Television Stations, Inc. following his employment termination in 1992, citing violations of New York State and City human rights laws. Fox subsequently removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, referencing an arbitration clause within Powers' 1992 employment agreement, and to stay the ongoing action. Powers contended that his employment contract was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that his claims fell outside the arbitration clause's scope. The court, relying on Second Circuit precedents, disagreed with Powers' interpretation, concluding that the FAA's employment contract exclusion was limited to the transportation industry and that the broadly worded arbitration clause encompassed the dispute. Consequently, the court granted Fox's motions, compelling arbitration and staying the civil action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract LawStatutory InterpretationMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsSecond Circuit PrecedentNew York Human Rights LawArbitration Clause Scope
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04470
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Powers v. Plaza Tower, LLC

Plaintiff William Powers was injured after falling through a dismantled catwalk on the roof of a building owned by Plaza Tower, LLC, while installing a window washing scaffold. Plaza had retained plaintiff's employer, Global BMU, LLC, for the work. The Supreme Court denied Plaza's motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Global and granted Global's motion to dismiss the claim. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the accident was due to Plaza's sole negligence for failing to maintain a safe premises or warn of hazards, and that Global and Powers were not negligent.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentContractual indemnificationNegligenceCatwalk collapseBuilding ownerWarning signsDuty to maintainAppellate DivisionWorker injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zasada v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

The plaintiffs, John Kline and the estate of Ronald E. Pollen, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Schoharie County, which dismissed their complaint against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The original action sought damages for injuries and death sustained in 1969 when a crane, operated by the plaintiffs, contacted live power lines owned by Niagara Mohawk. The trial court had found insufficient notice to establish foreseeability of the hazard. On appeal, the court determined that the record contained sufficient evidence of constructive notice regarding the extensive construction project and the likelihood of equipment operating near the power lines. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment, finding that a jury could rationally find negligence on the part of Niagara Mohawk, and ordered a new trial.

Appellate ReviewNegligenceForeseeabilityConstructive NoticePower LinesWorkplace AccidentCrane OperationDismissal ReversedNew Trial OrderedUtility Company Liability
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00258
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2025

Scaletta v. Michels Power, Inc.

Brandon Scaletta, a helicopter lineman, sued Michels Power, Inc., the general contractor, after sustaining serious injuries when the helicopter he was working outside of crashed. Plaintiff alleged negligence and violations of New York Labor Law. Defendant sought dismissal, arguing plaintiff's claims were preempted by the Federal Aviation Act, which occupies the field of air safety. The Supreme Court denied dismissal, ruling the helicopter functioned as construction equipment. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the claims arose from the state's police power over occupational health and safety, not air safety, and did not conflict with federal regulations. A dissenting opinion argued the accident was inextricably linked to air safety, warranting federal preemption.

Federal PreemptionAir SafetyLabor LawNegligenceOccupational Health and SafetyAppellate DivisionHelicopter AccidentConstruction WorkGeneral Contractor LiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
25
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

This case involves a dispute between International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 (the union) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The union sought to confirm an arbitration award that reinstated employee Patrick J. Rando, who was discharged by Niagara Mohawk after adulterating a drug test sample and later testing positive for cocaine. Niagara Mohawk counterclaimed to vacate the award, arguing it violated public policy related to nuclear safety. The employee, a Chemistry Technician at a nuclear power plant, had unescorted access to critical areas. The court reviewed the public policy implications de novo, citing NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 26) that emphasize strict adherence to nuclear safety rules and the trustworthiness of personnel. The court found that the grievant's conduct directly contravened this well-defined public policy. Consequently, the court denied the union's motion to confirm, granted Niagara Mohawk's cross-motion, and vacated the arbitration award, dismissing the complaint entirely. Both parties' requests for attorney's fees were denied.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyNuclear SafetyDrug TestingEmployee DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessTrustworthinessReliabilityReinstatement
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LEFEVRE v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Plaintiffs, former employees of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, filed a putative class action alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). They challenged amendments to the company's health benefit plans, arguing that Medicare-eligible retirees were required to pay greater dollar amounts and percentages of total premiums for the same coverage compared to non-Medicare eligible retirees. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that the plans were exempt from ADEA prohibitions due to their coordination with Medicare and also fell within the ADEA's 'equal benefit' safe harbor, as the actual benefits received were the same regardless of Medicare eligibility. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Age DiscriminationADEARetiree Health BenefitsMedicare CoordinationSummary JudgmentEmployee Benefit PlansDiscrimination LawStatutory ExemptionEqual Benefit PrincipleClass Action
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 24,623 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