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
Nov 29, 2004

Velella v. New York Local Condotional Release Commission

The petitioners, including Gonzalez, Caba, Stephens, Velella, and DelToro, challenged determinations by the Conditional Release Commission and the Department of Correction. These determinations advised petitioners that their conditional releases were invalid and directed them to surrender. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their five CPLR article 78 petitions. This appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the petitioners' conditional releases illegal due to non-compliance with Correction Law § 273 (1) and (6). The court also ruled that the agencies had the power to set aside determinations based on significant irregularities and that the petitioners had no substantive due process right to illegal orders, having been afforded adequate procedural due process through the CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Conditional ReleaseCorrection Law ViolationsDue ProcessArticle 78 PetitionAgency AuthorityIllegal ReleaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGovernment EstoppelNew York Law
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01782 [226 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2024

Nunez v. SY Prospect LLC

Plaintiff Arlender Nunez successfully moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant SY Prospect LLC. Plaintiff fell from an unsecured ladder while performing work, asserting SY Prospect LLC failed to provide necessary safety devices. The court found plaintiff established a prima facie case that his injuries were proximately caused by a Labor Law violation. Defendants failed to present evidence to rebut this or to support a 'recalcitrant worker defense'. The Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.

Ladder FallLabor LawSummary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseConstruction AccidentUnsecured LadderBuilding Owner LiabilityAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reynoso v. Prospect Associates, L.P.

Plaintiff Luis Reynoso, an employee, sustained injuries when an interior staircase collapsed during demolition work at a building owned by defendant Prospect Associates, L.P. and for which defendant Flintlock Construction, Inc. was the general contractor. Reynoso filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices. Defendants disputed whether Reynoso was authorized to be in the building and the nature of the work he was performing, as demolition was not officially scheduled. The Supreme Court denied both plaintiffs' and defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, finding significant factual disputes. The appellate court affirmed this denial, emphasizing that issues regarding plaintiff's authorization and the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to the staircase must be resolved at trial.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentStaircase CollapseDemolition Work InjuryWorker SafetyPremises LiabilityAuthorization DisputeFactual DisputesAppellate AffirmationConstruction Accident
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00832 [125 AD3d 435]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2015

Matter of Prospect Park E. Network v. New York State Homes & Community Renewal

This case involves an appeal regarding a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction aimed at halting work and public financing for a project until a further environmental review is conducted. Petitioners, including Prospect Park East Network, sought to annul a negative declaration of environmental impact issued by the New York State Housing Finance Agency (HFA). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that HFA properly identified and thoroughly reviewed environmental concerns, providing a reasoned basis for its determination of no significant adverse environmental impacts. The court also found that any misclassification of the project as a Type I action was a harmless error since the appropriate review procedures were followed. Additionally, the court noted that HFA's financing impact was slight because the project could proceed without its funding.

Environmental ReviewPreliminary InjunctionNegative DeclarationHousing Finance AgencySEQRAType I ActionHarmless ErrorAppellate DivisionArticle 78Urban Development
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1984

Polito v. Polito

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing her complaint seeking rescission of a release and reformation of a deed, alleging duress. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the complaint. The appellate court found ample evidence of the defendant's physical and emotional abuse, which compelled the plaintiff to sign the release, thus depriving her of free will. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remitted the matter for entry of a judgment rescinding the release and reforming the deed to establish joint tenancy of the property.

DuressRescissionDeed ReformationDomestic ViolenceSpousal AbuseJoint TenancyEquitable ReliefAppellate ReviewFree WillRatification of Agreement
References
5
Case No. 2017-04-0074
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2017

Adamczyk, Adam v. Prospect, Inc.

Ms. Adamczyk, a caregiver for Prospect, Inc., sought workers' compensation for a mid-back injury sustained on January 23, 2017, while working at a client's cluttered home. Despite conflicting accounts regarding the incident and delayed reporting, the Court found Ms. Adamczyk likely to prevail on the merits, establishing that her injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The Court granted her request for medical benefits, ordering Prospect to cover past and future reasonable medical treatment, including an orthopedic referral. However, her request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence of duration, though she may request them later. The Court also referred the matter to the Compliance unit for potential penalties due to Prospect's failure to provide crucial medical records during mediation.

Medical BenefitsExpedited HearingMid-Back InjuryThoracic Back StrainCausationPre-existing ConditionEmployee TestimonyEmployer InvestigationMedical Records DisputeCompliance Referral
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Staton Holdings, Inc. v. Tatum, L.L.C.

This case involves an appeal by Staton Holdings, Inc. against Tatum, L.L.C. after a trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment against Staton. Staton had sued Tatum, an executive search firm, following the resignation of a candidate placed by Tatum, alleging various claims including breach of contract and warranty, negligence, and fraud. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for negligence, gross negligence, and fraud, ruling they were barred by the economic-loss rule due to inadequate briefing by Staton. However, the court reversed and remanded the breach of warranty claims, extending the express-negligence test to prospective releases of future breaches of warranty in service transactions, finding the release in question did not specifically cover such claims. The court upheld the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, deeming the release unambiguous and broadly applicable to claims relating to the recruited candidate.

Summary JudgmentBreach of WarrantyBreach of ContractEconomic Loss RuleExpress Negligence RuleFair Notice DoctrineProspective ReleaseRisk ShiftingExecutive Search ServicesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baty v. ProTech Insurance Agency

This case concerns a dispute between an insurance agency, Baty & Associates Insurance Agency, Inc. (BAI), and its shareholder Rick D. Baty, against former officers Connie Suzanne Malliaros and Treva C. Neill, their new company ProTech Insurance Agency, and four insurance companies: Aetna, Hartford, AMS, and Fidelity. The appellants alleged breach of fiduciary duties, wrongful diversion of business, tortious interference with contracts and prospective business relationships, and civil conspiracy. The Texas Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's summary judgments, which were largely in favor of the defendants. The court reversed the summary judgment regarding tort claims against Malliaros, Neill, and ProTech, and for Hartford on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, remanding these for further proceedings. However, it affirmed the summary judgments for the other insurance companies on tortious interference with prospective business relationships, and for all insurance companies on claims of tortious interference with existing contracts, inducing breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, clarifying that the prior settlement and rescission agreement did not release the tort claims.

Insurance LawFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceContract LawCivil ConspiracyRescissionRehearing OpinionEmployment RelationshipBusiness Disparagement
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lugo v. Gaines

This dissenting opinion concerns a petitioner's request for review of a determination terminating his participation in a temporary release program and for monetary damages. The petitioner, an inmate, was removed from the program after a urine sample tested positive for cocaine. The dissent argues that the procedures followed, despite a lack of formal chain of custody documentation, did not violate the petitioner's due process rights, as strict rules of evidence are not required in such disciplinary proceedings. Citing judicial precedent, the dissenting judges emphasize that an inmate's constitutional protections are diminished by institutional needs. Therefore, they would affirm the termination of the petitioner's work release program.

temporary release programdrug testingdue processinmate rightscorrectional facilitiesadministrative hearingchain of custodyurine analysisArticle 78State liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,413 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