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

Rogers v. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc.

Ronald Rogers, while performing maintenance, fell nine feet from a stationary conveyor system at Agway Feed Mill. He and his wife, Lisa Rogers, sued Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc. and Portee, Inc., alleging negligent design and manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Westfalia, Portee, Probec, Inc., and Mill Technology, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Rogers and their products were not defective. The court found that Agway, the employer and purchaser, was in the best position to assess risks and declined optional safety equipment. Furthermore, Rogers was aware of the dangers, and warnings were posted. Consequently, the court granted all motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemIndustrial AccidentAssumption of RiskOpen and Obvious Danger
References
17
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregory B. v. Gregory F.

This consolidated appeal addresses whether incarcerated parents "permanently neglected" their children under Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a), thus justifying the termination of parental rights. In Matter of Gregory B., the father, incarcerated since 1980, proposed long-term foster care for his children until his release, which was rejected. Similarly, in Matter of Willie John B. and Matter of Delores B., the father, incarcerated since 1979, also offered indefinite foster care after relatives were found unwilling or unable to provide care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights in all cases, holding that while 1983 statutory reforms acknowledged special circumstances for incarcerated parents, they did not excuse them from planning for their child's future. The Court concluded that indefinite foster care is not a "viable plan" as it is inconsistent with the purpose of foster care and deprives children of the essential permanency required for proper growth and development.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationIncarcerated ParentSocial Services LawFoster CareAdoptionChild WelfareFamily LawCourt of AppealsJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05361
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2024

Rogers v. Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc.

The plaintiff, Michael Rogers, an employee of Certified Interiors, Inc., sustained personal injuries at a construction site when a boom lift he was operating suddenly malfunctioned. Rogers initiated an action against Peter Scalamandre & Sons, Inc., the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Scalamandre subsequently filed a third-party action against Certified for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court granted Rogers' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) and largely denied other motions. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting Certified's motion to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim, deeming it void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 due to Scalamandre's negligence, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's rulings.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentBoom Lift MalfunctionLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)General Obligations Law § 5-322.1Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
32
Case No. 2013-1699 Q CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2016

People v. Martin (Gregory)

Gregory Martin appealed two judgments from the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County, for attempted criminal contempt in the second degree, based on violations of an order of protection. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction related to conduct between July 19-22, 2011, finding sufficient legal evidence. However, the judgment for conduct on September 23, 2011, was reversed and dismissed because the verdict was deemed against the weight of the evidence due to witness testimony discrepancies. The court also upheld the amendment of the date in the prosecutor's information, citing CPL 100.45 (2) and 200.70.

Criminal ContemptOrder of ProtectionAttempted Criminal ContemptSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewAmendment of Accusatory InstrumentRosario PacketProsecutor's InformationWitness Testimony
References
13
Case No. 534112
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Gregory Grinnage

Claimant Gregory Grinnage, a bus driver for 31 years, filed a workers' compensation claim for repetitive stress injuries to his wrists, hands, knees, hip, and shoulder. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, citing insufficient evidence due to incomplete review of prior medical records by the claimant's physician, Dr. Gideon Hedrych. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding sufficient uncontradicted medical evidence from Dr. Hedrych establishing a causal link between the claimant's conditions and the repetitive nature of his job duties. The employer appealed both the Board's decision and its denial of reconsideration/full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence for the occupational disease determination and no abuse of discretion in denying the employer's request for an IME extension or full Board review.

Occupational DiseaseRepetitive Stress InjuryWorkers' Compensation ClaimMedical CausationIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Board ReconsiderationFull Board ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionBus Driver Injuries
References
11
Case No. 534683
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Gregory Echevarria

The case involves an appeal from decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board concerning death benefits for Gregory Echevarria, who died in a work-related accident. Keamesha Echevarria, the decedent's estranged wife, filed for survivors' benefits for herself and their three children. Decedent's fiancée also filed a claim for their child and argued that Keamesha had abandoned the decedent, thus forfeiting spousal benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found that Keamesha had not abandoned the decedent and was entitled to benefits as the surviving spouse. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Keamesha remained the legal spouse under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (1-a), as the elements for abandonment were not met. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's denial of the fiancée's application for reconsideration or full Board review.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSurviving SpouseAbandonmentDomestic Relations LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionStatutory InterpretationDependency ClaimsMarital Status
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. New York University

Susan Rogers sued her former employer, New York University (NYU), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rogers, an administrative aide, experienced psychological difficulties and took two medical leaves in 1997. After exhausting her FMLA leave, NYU terminated her, citing a lack of written medical certification for her return to work. The court granted summary judgment to NYU on Rogers' FMLA claims, finding that her therapist's oral communications were insufficient certification. However, the court denied summary judgment on her ADA claims, ruling that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether an extended leave would have been a reasonable accommodation for her disability, given that NYU did not fill her position but used temporary workers during the requested six-week extension.

ADAFMLAdisability discriminationreasonable accommodationsummary judgmentextended leaveemployment lawwrongful terminationmental healthpost-traumatic stress disorder
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. New York City Transit Authority

James Rogers, a member of the Socialist Workers' Party, was fined $50 by the New York City Transit Authority for selling newspapers on a subway station platform, violating a rule against unauthorized commercial activity. Rogers challenged this, asserting free speech violations and arguing his activities were permitted. The trial court sided with Rogers, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling the subway is not a public forum. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that subway stations are limited public forums subject to reasonable, content-neutral regulations. The Court upheld the Transit Authority's ban on sales activity, recognizing its legitimate interest in managing the transportation system for safety and efficiency.

First AmendmentFree SpeechPublic Forum DoctrineCommercial ActivitySubway StationPolitical CampaignExpressive ConductNew York City Transit AuthorityRegulationsAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. ADJ1063483 (SBR 0342621)
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

SONG ROGERS (Deceased); RICHARD ROGERS, vs. ALLIED VAN LINES, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves Allied Van Lines seeking reconsideration of a prior order finding their employee, Song Rogers (now deceased), sustained a work-related injury. The employer argued the finding was based solely on the inconsistent testimony of the deceased's husband regarding employment details. The Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's findings that the husband's testimony was credible despite apparent inconsistencies. The Board emphasized the judge's opportunity to assess witness demeanor as critical to the credibility determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAllied Van LinesTransguard Insurance Company of AmericaSong RogersRichard RogersFindings and OrderDarren Bergey M.D.employee statuscredibility determinationdeposition testimony
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 202 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