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. 2018-2353 RO C
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Russo v. Jay

Plaintiffs Rosemarie Russo and Joseph Ostrowsky sued defendant Kenneth Jay in a small claims action for property damage caused by a tree limb falling from defendant's property. Defendant counterclaimed for trespassing. The Justice Court awarded plaintiffs damages. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the judgment, finding that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case by not demonstrating a defective condition or defendant's actual or constructive notice of such a condition in the tree. The court also noted plaintiffs' failure to exercise their right to self-help by pruning overhanging branches. The matter was remitted to the Justice Court for entry of a judgment dismissing the action.

property damagetree liabilityadjoining landownerssmall claims appealnegligenceconstructive noticeself-help doctrineappellate reversalprima facie caseJustice Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2009

Haracz v. Cee Jay, Inc.

The plaintiff, an auto mechanic, suffered personal injuries after slipping on a wet floor in his employer's garage. The premises were owned by Cee Jay, Inc., and leased by the plaintiff's employer, Blue Chip Automotive. After receiving Workers' Compensation benefits from Blue Chip, the plaintiff initiated a personal injury action against Cee Jay, Inc., and Adelphi Contractors, Inc., who was hired by Cee Jay to repair a leaking roof. Cee Jay moved for summary judgment, arguing that the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, claiming an alter ego or joint venture relationship with Blue Chip, or co-employee status. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed the denial, concluding that Cee Jay failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish such a relationship with Blue Chip.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter EgoJoint VentureCo-employeePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewExclusivity ProvisionEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2014

Guzman v. Jay

Plaintiff Noel Jackson Guzman filed a Section 1983 action against New York City Police Officer Brian Jay, alleging false arrest and excessive force stemming from a 2009 incident. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for Guzman, awarding him significant compensatory and punitive damages for false arrest and excessive force. Officer Jay subsequently moved for a new trial, remittitur, and judgment as a matter of law. The court denied motions for a new trial and remittitur, but granted judgment as a matter of law on the false arrest claim due to qualified immunity. This decision was based on the jury's finding that Officer Jay reasonably, though possibly mistakenly, believed Guzman was fighting at the time of arrest.

False ArrestExcessive Force42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityJury VerdictRemittiturNew Trial MotionJudgment as a Matter of LawPolice MisconductPersonal Injury
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Franco v. Jay Cee of New York Corp.

An apprentice elevator mechanic was injured by an elevator counterweight while working on an elevator modernization project at a building owned by Jay Gee of New York Corp. The plaintiff sued Jay Gee and TJK, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), which incorporated 12 NYCRR 23-2.5 (b) (3) regarding the need for partitions. After a jury found Jay Gee not liable, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict, finding that the trial court erred by allowing defense witnesses to provide misleading expert testimony on the interpretation of Industrial Code § 23-2.5 (b) (3). The case was remanded for a new trial, with the court noting that instructions on the defense of impossibility might be required.

Elevator AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeJury VerdictEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyStatutory InterpretationRemandNew Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ridge v. Gold

This dissenting opinion addresses a case concerning the doctrine of collateral estoppel in a workers' compensation claim. The dissent argues that the defendant, Jay Braymiller, failed to meet his burden in establishing that collateral estoppel should bar the plaintiff's action. Specifically, they contend that the defendant did not demonstrate that the issue of whether an accident occurred was clearly raised and decided in a prior workers’ compensation proceeding, citing an inadequate record. Furthermore, the dissent highlights an issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the disputed issue before the Workers’ Compensation Board, as the "C-7 Notice" did not provide sufficient notice that the employer was challenging the occurrence of an accident. Therefore, the dissenting justices conclude that the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Collateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationDissenting OpinionBurden of ProofIssue PreclusionC-7 NoticeEmployer-Employee RelationshipCausally Related AccidentAccident Occurrence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cee Jay Sportswear, Inc. v. Sinensky

Plaintiff, Gee Jay Sportswear, a knit goods manufacturer, sued an unnamed defendant union to enjoin picketing, interference with deliveries, and for money damages. The union began picketing plaintiff's premises, alleging that Louis Gordon, a former employee with a prior agreement with the union, was associated with the plaintiff in violation of his contract. The plaintiff contended the picketing aimed to compel recognition of the defendant union, while the defendant insisted it protested Gordon's alleged contract breach. The court found the picket signs, which claimed a 'strike', to be false and misleading as no strike was occurring. Ultimately, the court directed judgment in favor of the plaintiff, enjoining the defendant union from picketing in a manner that falsely implied a strike, but denied the broader injunctive relief sought by the plaintiff.

PicketingInjunctionLabor DisputeFalse RepresentationUnion OrganizationCollective BargainingEmployer-Employee RelationsUnfair Labor PracticesTemporary Restraining OrderContract Violation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Potter v. Jay E. Potter Lumber Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of R&R Precision Construction, was injured when a forklift, used to unload aluminum sheeting from a Jay E. Potter Lumber Co. truck, tipped due to an overload. Plaintiff and the Leaton defendants (property owners, doing business as Leaton Farms) appealed a Supreme Court judgment. Appeal No. 1 challenged the jury's finding that Potter Lumber's negligence was not a substantial factor in the accident. Appeal No. 2, brought by the Leaton defendants, contested the directed verdict against them on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable due to the gravity-related injury from an inadequate safety device, and concluding the jury's verdict regarding Potter Lumber's negligence was not inconsistent or against the weight of the evidence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceForkliftConstruction AccidentElevated RiskGravity HazardInadequate Safety DeviceProximate CauseJury Verdict Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2014

Gallen v. County of Rockland

This case concerns an appeal by defendants Jay L. Lombard and Brain Behavior Center-Rockland from the denial of their motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, after a suicide attempt, was discharged from Valley Hospital with a safety contract. The same day, he was seen by defendant Lombard, a neurologist, who performed a suicide assessment, prescribed medication, and concluded there was no immediate risk, but the decedent committed suicide a week later. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Lombard departed from good medical practice by failing to obtain prior records and conducting an inadequate suicide assessment.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicide AssessmentNeurologist LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStandard of CareProximate CausePatient DischargePsychiatric Treatment
References
6
Case No. ADJ12344251
Regular
Sep 05, 2025

JAY MYERS vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Lien claimant Tiare Brock petitioned for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision. The WCJ had found that applicant Jay Myers sustained industrial injury but disallowed Brock's lien, citing a failure to establish entitlement to penalties and a deficient lien. Brock contended the WCJ erred by prioritizing procedural formalities over the mandate for reasonable and necessary medical care. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the record was not adequately developed and required further study of the factual and legal issues before issuing a final decision on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantRequest for AuthorizationMedical Provider NetworkLabor Code Section 46108 CCR § 9792.6.1(t)AOE/COEPTSDSheriff Deputy SergeantSubstantial Evidence
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenblum v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Petitioner, Jay Alan Rosenblum, M.D., brought a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Workers’ Compensation Board’s (WCB) interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (3) (a). Dr. Rosenblum, a neurologist certified by the WCB since 1966, was denied authorization to conduct independent medical examinations under new regulations. These regulations mandated that such examinations be conducted by physicians 'board certified' by specialty boards recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or the American Osteopathic Association (AOA). Dr. Rosenblum, an M.D. without ABMS/AOA certification, argued that the WCB’s narrow definition was improper and that the regulations should have included a grandfathering provision. The court upheld the WCB’s interpretation, finding it neither arbitrary nor capricious, emphasizing judicial deference to agency expertise. Consequently, the court denied the petition to vacate the denial and annul the regulations, and granted the WCB’s motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Workers' Compensation BoardIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard CertificationPhysician LicensingMedical Specialty BoardsABMSAOAAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 51 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