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. 2019 NY Slip Op 00021
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2019

Ramirez v. Elias-Tejada

This consolidated appeal arises from a three-car collision on December 12, 2011, involving a stalled car carrying Fairway employees that was struck by two other vehicles. Plaintiffs, including Pilar Ramirez, Yedmy Batista Peralta, and Delio Polanco (on behalf of his deceased wife), sought damages. Key issues involved the application of the relation back doctrine to add Fairway entities as defendants, the assertion of a Workers' Compensation Law defense, and motions for summary judgment regarding negligence and serious injury. The Appellate Division reviewed several Supreme Court orders, resulting in a mixed decision that reversed in part, affirmed in part, modified in part, and granted in part.

Car accidentThree-car collisionRespondeat superiorWorkers' Compensation LawRelation back doctrineSummary judgmentVicarious liabilityStatute of limitationsPleading errorAmended complaint
References
11
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04334 [230 AD3d 811]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2024

Ramirez v. Pace Univ.

The plaintiff, Jonathan Ramirez, suffered personal injuries after falling from a scaffold during a construction project at Pace University, which had contracted with NYCAN Builders, LLC to manage the project. Ramirez sued both Pace University and NYCAN Builders, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Ramirez's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of an elevation-related hazard and proximate cause, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or demonstrate that the motion was premature. The court also held NYCAN Builders, LLC liable as a statutory agent under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentConstruction SiteLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate DivisionElevation-Related HazardProximate CauseStatutory Agent LiabilityNondelegable Duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Rifkin

Plaintiff Reina Ramirez brought an action against Terry and Leah Rifkin alleging failure to pay wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law (NYLL). Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred and that plaintiff did not perform overtime work. The court denied summary judgment on the FLSA overtime claims and state law claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the statute of limitations, willfulness, and equitable tolling, as well as the amount of time plaintiff worked. However, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on federal and state minimum wage claims from mid-2003 to December 8, 2005, based on the plaintiff's concession.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York State Labor LawSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingOvertime PayMinimum WageDomestic WorkerEmployment LawRecord Keeping
References
43
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00901
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Ramirez v. Echevarria

Sarah Ramirez, on behalf of Garrison Echevarria, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that ruled Keamesha Echevarria was entitled to death benefits as the surviving spouse of the deceased Gregory Echevarria. The appeal also challenged the denial of an application for reconsideration by the decedent's fiancée. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's finding that Keamesha Echevarria had not abandoned the decedent, thus qualifying her as a legal spouse for workers' compensation death benefits. The Court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion, as the elements required to establish abandonment were not met. Additionally, the Court upheld the denial of the reconsideration application, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSurviving SpouseDeath BenefitsAbandonmentDomestic Relations LawAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationReconsideration ApplicationCredibility DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2008

In the Matter of Ramroop v. Flexo-Craft Printing, Inc.

This case involves a motion filed by Sameer M. Ashar et al. seeking leave to appear as amici curiae in the appeal of Ronnie Ramroop against Flexo-Craft Printing, Inc. and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the submitted motion on April 28, 2008. On May 1, 2008, the Court issued its decision regarding this procedural request. The motion for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal was granted. The proposed brief was accepted, with instructions for service and filing within seven days.

Workers' CompensationAmici CuriaeMotion PracticeAppellate ProcedureNew York Court of AppealsProcedural RulingLeave to AppearBrief FilingAppeal GrantedLabour Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. v. Expromtorg International Corp.

The case involves a breach of contract action filed by General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. (GTP), a Connecticut corporation with offices in New York City, against Expromtorg International Corp. and its president, Guennadi Razouvaev, both Michigan residents. The defendants moved to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the original sales notes (OSN), and also sought to dismiss claims against Razouvaev for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff GTP opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion to stay arbitration, arguing that a later, unsigned settlement stipulation had supplanted the arbitration agreement and that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate through litigation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Razouvaev, finding a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil based on alleged fraudulent conduct. Ultimately, the Court denied GTP's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitration agreement in the OSN remained effective and that no waiver of arbitration had occurred, thus granting defendants' motion to stay the entire action pending arbitration.

Breach of ContractArbitrationPersonal JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingWaiver of ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActSales NotesSettlement StipulationAlter Ego Doctrine
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 20,548 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