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

Sutherland v. City of New York

Norrel Sutherland, a dock builder, was injured on a job site while operating a defective winch motor for Pile Foundation Construction Co., Inc., his employer. He subsequently filed actions against the City of New York, its departments, Ingersoll-Rand Company, and Pile Foundation, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law, Jones Act, and LHWCA. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against Pile under LHWCA and Jones Act, and some Labor Law claims against the City, but denied dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its prior determinations. Sutherland and the City appealed. This appellate court dismisses several appeals and cross-appeals, upholds the dismissal of Jones Act and Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims, and modifies the prior order to grant summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim against the City. The court extensively discusses the "dual capacity" employer liability under LHWCA, affirming that Pile's alleged negligence related to employer functions, not vessel owner functions, thus granting Pile immunity. The final decision is to modify and affirm the prior orders.

Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActJones Act ClaimsLabor Law ClaimsDual Capacity DoctrineVessel Owner NegligenceEmployer ImmunitySummary Judgment AppealConstruction Site SafetyDefective EquipmentMaritime Worker Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Colona v. Colona

This case involves an appeal of a Family Court order from Broome County, entered August 7, 2013, which granted the father's application to modify a prior custody order. The parties, a father and mother, have two children. After the children stayed with the father in Colorado beyond a scheduled visitation, the father initiated custody modification proceedings in New York, while the mother sought visitation modification. The Family Court found a sufficient change in circumstances, citing the mother's unstable living situation and the children's positive adjustment with the father, and subsequently granted sole custody to the father during the school year. The Appellate Court affirmed this decision, finding a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's determination, and upheld its consideration of past circumstances and the attorney for the children's recommendation.

Custody ModificationParental FitnessChildren's Best InterestsChange in CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6RelocationParenting TimeCredibility AssessmentDomestic InstabilityChild Protective Services
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fire Insurance v. Fotinakos

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had denied an application to stay arbitration of an underinsured supplemental uninsurance motorists’ claim. The appellate court reversed this order, granting the petition and permanently staying the arbitration. The petitioner argued that it was entitled to reduce the amount payable under the supplemental uninsured motorists' coverage by all Workers' Compensation sums received by the respondent, which exceeded the policy limits. The court found this claim uncontroverted and also ruled that Regulation 35-D was inapplicable, as the subject insurance policy was issued prior to the regulation's effective date.

Underinsured Motorist ClaimWorkers' Compensation OffsetInsurance Policy InterpretationArbitration StayAppellate DivisionKings CountyRegulation InapplicabilityPolicy LimitsInsurance LawJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ7408183
Regular
Feb 09, 2016

GABRIEL LOPEZ vs. EXPRESS REGENCY PARKING, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

This case involves a dispute over conflicting stay orders on lien claims filed by Landmark Medical Management. The Appeals Board granted Landmark's Petition for Removal, rescinding a June 26, 2015 order that stayed proceedings due to criminal and civil indictments against Landmark. This rescinded order was superseded by an earlier, broader stay order from May 14, 2015, in a consolidated matter. The Board is consolidating this case with the prior stayed matters to ensure consistent application of a single stay order.

Petition for RemovalLandmark Medical ManagementPharmaFinance LLCMedRx Funding LLCSupplemental Minute Ordercriminal indictmentscivil complaintconflicting stay orderOscar ArreolaWestern Door & Trim
References
2
Case No. ADJ2501619 (OAK 0286955)
Regular
Nov 10, 2008

JAMES BRADFORD vs. MCMILLAN BROS. ELECTRIC, INC., PACIFIC EAGLE INSURANCE CO./tpa SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petitions for reconsideration, removal, and stay of execution. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed with the Appeals Board more than 25 days after the arbitrator's decision. The Board also lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition for removal or stay of execution, as these actions are not permitted for an arbitrator's decision in a Labor Code section 3201.5 carve-out case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for Stay of ExecutionUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 3201.5Carve-out CaseArbitrator's DecisionJurisdictionAppeals Board Rule 10865
References
4
Case No. 21 MC 100
Regular Panel Decision

In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation

This opinion addresses motions to stay proceedings in lawsuits filed by thousands of workers, including Kirk Arsenault and Steve Zablocki, who claim respiratory and other injuries from 9/11 World Trade Center clean-up efforts. The court clarifies the scope of a prior Second Circuit stay order concerning appeals of immunity claims made by the City of New York and its contractors. Judge Hellerstein rules that the Second Circuit's stay applies to appealing defendants within the CM03-defined World Trade Center site. Consequently, defendant Tully Construction Co. Inc.'s motion to stay is granted, while defendant Verizon New York Inc.'s motion is denied without prejudice, requiring a further showing of its immunity defense. Cases against non-appealing defendants or those outside the CM03 area are generally permitted to proceed with discovery.

World Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-up WorkersRespiratory InjuriesImmunity DefenseMotions to StayAppellate JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealCase Management OrdersFederal JurisdictionStabilization Act
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dubinsky v. Joseph Love, Inc.

A motion seeking an order to affirm a prior order and judgment and to vacate a previous determination and order of the court was considered and denied by the judicial panel. The panel included Justices Martin, Townley, Callahan, and Peck.

Motion PracticeOrder AffirmanceJudgment AffirmancePrior DeterminationOrder VacaturJudicial Panel DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ2975271 (OXN 0141978)
Regular
Feb 09, 2018

BAUDELIO CHAVARRIA vs. AMERICAN LANDSCAPE, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for removal, rescinding a July 1, 2015, order that stayed proceedings on lien claims filed by Landmark Medical Management. This rescission was based on a conflict with a prior, overarching stay order issued on May 14, 2015, in a consolidated matter. The Board found that the earlier stay order takes precedence and ordered this matter consolidated with the previously stayed cases pending before WCJ Devine.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental Minute OrderLien ClaimsCriminal IndictmentsCivil ComplaintConflicting Stay OrderPrior Stay OrderRescindedAppeals BoardConsolidation
References
1
Case No. 90 Civ. 8473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

Asbestos Litigation

Defendant Raymark Industries, Inc. moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer four of six consolidated asbestos actions. The plaintiffs in these actions (Greff, Moore, McPadden, Strafford, Ciletti, Conway) alleged exposure to asbestos causing diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer. Raymark based its motion on claims of insufficient service of process, ineffective amendment of complaints to include Raymark as a defendant, and the applicability of abstention doctrine due to parallel state court proceedings for Ciletti and Strafford. The court denied all aspects of Raymark's motion. It found that the plaintiffs had complied with service requirements under New York Business Corporation Law § 307 and that the amendment adding Raymark as a defendant was authorized by a standing Case Management Order for asbestos litigation, overriding the need for specific court leave. Furthermore, the court determined that the conditions for federal abstention under the Colorado River doctrine were not met, upholding the federal court's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. The court also clarified that Raymark was indeed joined to the Greff and Moore actions through a prior consolidation order, despite Raymark's bankruptcy stay arguments.

Asbestos LitigationMultidistrict LitigationMotion to DismissService of ProcessAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel State and Federal ProceedingsJurisdiction
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 26,412 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