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
Feb 03, 1984

McIntosh v. International Business Machines Corp.

The case involves an appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, regarding the dismissal of a complaint filed by Filomena McIntosh. McIntosh, an employee at will, sought damages for breach of an employment contract, prima facie tort, and malicious discharge. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concurring with the lower court's finding that as an at-will employee, McIntosh failed to demonstrate any limitation on the employer's right to discharge. Additionally, the complaint alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 for unlawful discharge related to a compensation claim. However, the court clarified that enforcement and determination of such violations, including penalties, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the court.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentWrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrima Facie TortMalicious DischargeComplaint DismissalAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norero v. 99-105 Third Avenue Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, an employee of JLC Corp., was injured after partially falling into an unprotected floor opening at a construction site owned by 99-105 Third Avenue Realty, LLC, and managed by general contractor Bella Builders Associates, LLC. The plaintiff sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability as premature due to outstanding discovery. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for Labor Law violations and that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or demonstrate that the motion was premature. Consequently, the appellate court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against 99-105 and Bella.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Premises LiabilityOwner NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ReversalUnprotected Opening
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1985

Kollmer v. Slater Electric, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed her causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) in an action for wrongful death. The decedent, an employee of Delta Wells Inc., was fatally injured by a backhoe on land owned by the defendant, Slater Electric, Inc. The trial court had dismissed the Labor Law claim and ruled an OSHA violation inadmissible. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, holding that Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, irrespective of their control over the worksite, and that the plaintiff's offer of proof established a prima facie case. The court reinstated the plaintiff's causes of action and granted a new trial, but affirmed that the specific OSHA settlement was inadmissible as an admission.

Wrongful DeathLabor Law241(6)Nondelegable DutyConstruction AccidentBackhoe IncidentOSHA RegulationsPrima Facie CaseEvidence AdmissibilityNew Trial Granted
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1991

Davis v. Pizzagalli Construction Co.

Plaintiff James M. Davis was injured after falling from scaffolding while employed by Arthur Barber, Jr., a subcontractor to Pizzagalli Construction Company, which was hired by Chemung County. Davis and his wife filed damage actions against the defendants, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability for failure to provide proper protection for workers at risk due to elevation differentials. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but on appeal, the court found that Davis's uncontradicted testimony established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a scaffold board "kicked up" causing his fall. Defendants' mere speculation and the unwitnessed nature of the fall were deemed insufficient to rebut the prima facie showing, leading to the reversal of the lower court's order.

Scaffolding AccidentAbsolute LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyFall from HeightProximate Cause
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Probst v. 11 West 42 Realty Investors, LLC

The case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, regarding personal injuries and alleged Labor Law violations. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Defendants cross-appealed the denial of their cross-motion to dismiss Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 202 causes of action. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that while plaintiffs presented a prima facie case for Labor Law § 240 (1), a triable issue of fact existed regarding the injured plaintiff's conduct as the sole proximate cause. Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to dismiss the Labor Law claims, as questions remained concerning the availability of adequate safety devices and proximate causation. The decision highlighted that a plaintiff cannot be solely at fault if a statutory violation contributes to the injury.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseElevation RiskSafety DevicesWindow CleaningAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mingo v. Lebedowicz

The plaintiff, an electrician employed by Foster Electrical Service, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from an unsecured A-frame ladder while working at a construction site. He initiated a lawsuit against the building owner, Roosevelt Square, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, alongside common-law negligence. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the liability issue under Labor Law § 240(1), but the Supreme Court initially denied the motion, stating a failure to establish a prima facie case. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff had indeed established a prima facie case that his injuries stemmed from a Labor Law § 240(1) violation due to the unsecured ladder tipping over. Consequently, the appellate court found that Roosevelt Square, LLC, failed to present a triable issue of fact, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim should have been granted.

Construction AccidentLadder FallLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseBuilding Owner LiabilityScaffold LawUnsecured LadderPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06233
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Wright v. Pennings

The plaintiff, Brian P. Wright, sustained personal injuries when an unsecured 20-foot extension ladder fell and struck him while a coworker was installing wiring. The ladder slipped on a rubber mat covered in cow manure and hay. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding the plaintiff established prima facie that the unsecured ladder violated Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximately caused his injuries. The court also found the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200 claims, and the common-law negligence claim.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseElevation-Related RiskIndustrial CodeNegligence
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2004

Pierce v. HSBC Mortgage Corp.

The plaintiff, a mortgage loan officer, alleged that the defendants violated the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by terminating his employment while on FMLA leave and denying him approximately $400,000 in commissions. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the granting of the defendants' cross-motion, finding that commissions are not considered "employment benefits" under FMLA. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, as the defendants had decided to terminate his employment before he requested FMLA leave. Even if a prima facie case was made, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination, such as customer complaints and unprofessional conduct, were provided by the defendants.

FMLARetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment BenefitsCommissionsBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitCausal ConnectionLegitimate Nondiscriminatory ReasonsPretextual Reasons
References
5
Case No. 08-24-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

University of Texas at El Paso v. Gabriel Soriano

Gabriel Soriano, a former maintenance worker at The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), was terminated for violating company policy. He subsequently filed a lawsuit against UTEP, alleging gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. UTEP responded with a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity due to Soriano's alleged failure to establish a prima facie case for his claims. The trial court denied UTEP's plea. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order, concluding that Soriano failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for gender discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation. Consequently, all of Soriano's claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPrima Facie CaseAppellate ReviewTexas LawWorkplace TerminationJudicial Dismissal
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 8,193 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