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. 2024 NY Slip Op 02036 [226 AD3d 861]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2024

Caracciolo v. SHS Ralph, LLC

Richard Caracciolo, an elevator mechanic, allegedly sustained injuries during a construction project while working for Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation at premises owned by SHS Ralph, LLC, with Wilcox Development Corp. as the general contractor. He reportedly fell one story after stepping off an elevator platform onto an unconstructed mezzanine floor. Caracciolo filed a personal injury action, leading SHS Ralph to initiate a third-party action against Thyssenkrupp for contractual indemnification. Both SHS Ralph and Thyssenkrupp moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action and the third-party complaint. The Supreme Court denied these motions, and the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the absence of adequate safety devices was a proximate cause of the incident and whether Caracciolo's actions constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, stating SHS Ralph failed to demonstrate it was free from negligence.

construction accidentLabor Law § 240(1)elevation-related risksummary judgmentcontractual indemnificationproximate causenegligencethird-party actionelevator installationsafety devices
References
16
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05748 [198 AD3d 1120]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2021

Matter of Hawkins (A Place for Rover Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Benjamin Hawkins' claim for unemployment insurance benefits. A Place for Rover Inc. (Rover), an online platform for pet services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that found Hawkins to be an employee. The Appellate Division, Third Department, examined whether an employment relationship existed, focusing on the level of control Rover exercised over its service providers. The court determined that Rover did not exert sufficient control over the providers' services, methods, or outcomes, concluding that providers were independent contractors. Consequently, the Board's determination was reversed.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorGig EconomyPet ServicesOnline PlatformEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewLabor LawStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 1987

Hawkins v. Genesee Place Corp.

Plaintiff, Ms. Hawkins, was injured while working as a maid at the Hyde Park Hotel, operated by defendant Madison Avenue Hotel Partners. She was employed by Judson Realty, Inc., whose officer was defendant E. William Judson. The defendants sought to amend their answer to include the affirmative defense of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, finding the defense invalid for both defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting leave to amend for Madison Avenue Hotel Partners, based on the possibility of a special employment relationship, and for E. William Judson, as a co-employee. The court emphasized that the legal sufficiency of a proposed amendment should be sustained unless its insufficiency is clear and free from doubt, not to supplant motions for summary judgment.

Workers' Compensation LawMotion to AmendAffirmative DefenseSpecial Employment DoctrineCo-employee LiabilityPleading StandardsAppellate ReviewCPLR 3025(b)Judicial EconomyScope of Motion to Amend
References
5
Case No. ADJ1518346 (MON 0297186) ADJ1191000 (MON 0297189) ADJ1545243 (MON 0298423)
Regular
Nov 30, 2017

THOMAS MARTINEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

This case involved Ralphs Grocery Company seeking reconsideration of a WCJ's order allowing a $51,400.37 lien for medical treatment from the Motion Picture Health Fund (MPHF). Following reconsideration, Ralphs and MPHF entered into a voluntary settlement agreement. As a result, the Board rescinded the original WCJ's decision and approved the lien settlement for $29,500.00.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalphs Grocery CompanySedgwick Claims Management Serviceslien claimMotion Picture Health Fundmedical treatment expensepenaltiesinterestreconsiderationFindings and Orders
References
2
Case No. ADJ584782 AHM 0114457
Regular
Apr 18, 2011

James Green vs. Ralph's Grocery Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine if Ralph's Grocery Company's appeal of a Rehabilitation Unit order was timely. The Board found the appeal was timely because the defendant received the order on July 3, 2008, and filed their appeal on July 10, 2008. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior order, finding Ralph's Grocery Company is not liable for vocational rehabilitation services or maintenance allowance. This decision is based on the applicant's right to such benefits expiring on January 1, 2009.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalph's Grocery CompanyPermissibly Self-InsuredVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Vocational Rehabilitation ServicesRehabilitation Unit (RU)Decision and Order (D&O)LachesLabor Code section 139.5Timeliness of Appeal
References
7
Case No. ADJ4604933 (LBO 0347944) ADJ441100 (LBO 0347945) ADJ1350325 (LBO 0347946) ADJ2864784 (LBO 0347947) ADJ2043098 (LBO 0339856)
Regular
Nov 08, 2010

PETER AVALOS vs. RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY

Defendant Ralph's Grocery Company sought reconsideration of an award finding applicant Peter Avalos sustained cumulative trauma injuries. The defendant contested the temporary total disability award, arguing the applicant had left the labor market and the award exceeded the statute of limitations. Furthermore, Ralph's argued the permanent disability finding lacked due process and proper apportionment due to inadmissible evidence and multiple prior injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to defer the permanent disability issue for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative trauma injuryTemporary total disabilityPermanent disabilityApportionmentLabor marketDue processSubstantial evidencePrivate permanent disability ratingAdmissibility
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ralph

The case involves an appeal by foster parents John B. and Janet B. from a Family Court order that dismissed their petitions to adopt two foster children, Ralph and Georgina, and authorized the competing petitions by Patricia F. The Appellate Division found that Family Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the petitions because the Niagara County Department of Social Services (DSS) failed to execute and file the required consents for adoption. The court criticized DSS for abdicating its responsibility and for the 'convoluted procedure' it employed. The order was modified, dismissing all adoption petitions, but preserving the foster parents' right to a fair hearing regarding Georgina's removal and DSS's refusal to consent.

Adoption LawFoster CareJurisdictionFamily CourtAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationChild WelfareDepartment of Social ServicesConsent to AdoptionBest Interests of Child
References
6
Case No. ADJ4363746 (AHM 0151277)
Regular
Oct 17, 2011

MARGARITA MENDOZA vs. RALPH'S GROCERY

This order dismisses Margarita Mendoza's Petition for Reconsideration in her workers' compensation case against Ralph's Grocery. The Appeals Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, finding the petition untimely. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits based on the judge's reasoning. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportUntimely PetitionMerits DenialRalph's GrocerySelf-insuredADJ4363746AHM0151277
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 1996

In Re Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc.

Stuart L. Kreisler, the debtor's former chief executive officer, moved to have his claim against Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc. (RLW) estimated for voting purposes in RLW's plan of reorganization. Kreisler argued most of his claim, arising from postpetition termination, was an administrative expense, with a smaller unsecured claim. The debtor, RLW, denied any claim. Chief Judge Tina L. Brozman conducted an evidentiary hearing to estimate the claim due to time constraints before the confirmation hearing. The court determined that Kreisler's severance claim would likely be allowed as a postpetition quantum meruit administrative expense, estimating his prepetition unsecured claim related to unpaid bonus at $279,000, and the severance portion of his prepetition claim at zero. The ruling also addressed disputes concerning EBIT calculation for bonus determination and the allocation of the bonus between pre- and post-petition periods.

BankruptcyClaim EstimationSeverance PayAdministrative ExpenseQuantum MeruitEmployment AgreementDebtor ReorganizationPostpetition ClaimPrepetition ClaimBonus Calculation
References
13
Case No. ADJ741196 (MON 0219371)
Regular
Sep 03, 2010

FRED CALHOUN vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

This is an Order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying a Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) as the basis for denial. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed its prior decision, whatever that may have been, against Fred Calhoun and in favor of Ralphs Grocery Company.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRalphs Grocery CompanyPermissibly Self-InsuredOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJMichael Sullivan & Associates
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 180 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