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. 2020 NY Slip Op 01251
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2020

Ramos v. 110 Bennett Ave., LLC

Alejo Ramos, an employee, sustained an accident on the property of 110 Bennett Avenue, LLC (Owner). Owner sought summary judgment, arguing Ramos was their 'special employee,' which would limit their liability. The court found no evidence that Owner exercised exclusive control over Ramos's work, despite him being the property superintendent. Evidence showed that Rose Associates, Inc. employees supervised and directed Ramos's work. The court determined that general instructions and wage reimbursements by Owner were insufficient to establish a special employment relationship. The management agreement between Owner and Rose also designated Ramos as an employee of Rose. Therefore, the denial of the Owner's motion for summary judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewControl Over WorkEmployment RelationshipGeneral EmployerProperty ManagementLiability DisputeWorkers' Compensation ImplicationsLegal Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1998

Lopez v. Tarana

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in three related actions concerning wrongful death and personal injuries stemming from a car accident. An intoxicated employee, Cynthia Tarana, after drinking at an unofficial work event, caused an accident resulting in one death and two injuries. The Supreme Court initially found Tarana negligent and her employer, C & H Pizza Corp., and supervisor, Denise LaBarbera, liable under the 'social host' statute, awarding damages to the plaintiffs Annette Lopez, Kara Kissane, and Catherine Rubino. The appellate court reversed the judgment, citing errors in determining the supervisor's scope of employment, the omission of fault apportionment for the employer and driver, and the award of damages to Annette Lopez without proof of economic loss. Consequently, the complaint seeking damages for Annette Lopez personally was dismissed, and a new trial was granted for the remaining causes of action.

Wrongful deathPersonal injuryVehicular manslaughterIntoxicated drivingSocial host liabilityScope of employmentJury verdictDamagesAppellate reviewReversal
References
2
Case No. ADJ2148527 (MON 0299703)
Regular
Dec 05, 2008

RAMON RAMOS vs. MALCOLM DRILLING CO. INC., REPUBLIC INDEMNITY CO. OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATIONN INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns State Compensation Insurance Fund's (SCIF) challenge to an arbitrator's award of contribution to Republic Indemnity Company of America (Republic) for applicant Ramon Ramos' cumulative trauma injury. SCIF argued Republic lacked standing, the claim was time-barred, and SCIF's liability was improperly calculated. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to adjust SCIF's contribution percentage, limiting SCIF's liability to its actual coverage period from January 24, 2001, through December 31, 2001.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRepublic IndemnityState Compensation Insurance FundMalcolm Drilling CompanyRamon Ramoscumulative traumacontributionArbitrator's Findings and AwardPetition for Contributionstanding
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00629 [168 AD3d 1112]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2019

Ramos-Perez v. Evelyn USA, LLC

Felipe Ramos-Perez was injured while unloading flooring materials from a truck at a construction site. A hydraulic lift was used to lower heavy pallets, one of which fell and struck the plaintiff. Ramos-Perez commenced an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) against the property owners, Robert Soha Retail, LLC, and Soha Retail Equities, LLC (the Soha defendants). The Supreme Court initially granted the Soha defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Ramos-Perez's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide an appropriate safety device, which was the proximate cause of the injury. Therefore, the Appellate Division denied the Soha defendants' motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability.

construction accidentpersonal injuryLabor Lawsummary judgmentliabilityhydraulic liftfalling objectproximate causesafety deviceAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Gerver Lopez sued Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company to enforce an unsatisfied judgment against #1 Realty, alleging #1 Realty was an additional insured under a policy issued by Rutgers to Cavallaro Contracting, Inc. The court examined whether #1 Realty qualified as an insured and if certificates of insurance issued by Cavallaro's broker could establish coverage or estop Rutgers from denying it. The court found that #1 Realty was not named in the policy as an insured, and the certificates of insurance, issued by a broker not acting as Rutgers' agent, were insufficient to confer coverage. Consequently, the court granted Rutgers' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Lopez's claims.

Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary Judgment MotionAdditional Insured StatusCertificate of Insurance ValidityAgency LawEquitable EstoppelPolicy InterpretationExclusion ClausesNotice of OccurrenceMaterial Misrepresentation
References
47
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01249 [236 AD3d 693]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2025

Ramos v. Kent & Wythe Owners, LLC

Plaintiff Vidal Ramos was injured while working as a laborer for R&M Repairs and Maintenance, Inc., a subcontractor at a construction site, when an A-frame cart carrying sheetrock overturned, trapping his legs and waist. He sued Kent & Wythe Owners, LLC, and related entities (L&M defendants) under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200. The Supreme Court denied Ramos's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), denied leave to amend his bill of particulars, and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions regarding Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims and the denial of leave to amend. However, it modified the order by denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 claim, finding that the defendants failed to establish prima facie that they were not liable.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyA-frame Cart AccidentSheetrock MovementSubcontractor Liability
References
30
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00654 [179 AD3d 1414]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Puli-Lopez v. Triple 888 Dev. Group LLC

Milton Puli-Lopez, a construction laborer, filed a workers' compensation claim after sustaining injuries, identifying Triple 888 Development Group LLC as his employer. The Workers' Compensation Board modified an earlier WCLJ decision, concluding that Puli-Lopez was solely employed by Triple 888 Development Group LLC and that no general/special employment relationship existed with East 119th Street Development LLC, despite shared ownership and property management. Triple 888 and East 119th appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the claimant's application for review was incomplete and that the WCLJ's findings were supported by evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in reviewing the claimant's application and concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination regarding sole employment.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipGeneral/Special EmployerConstruction InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceEmployer LiabilityAdministrative ProcedureRegulatory Compliance
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03556 [217 AD3d 636]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2023

People v. Lopez

Sammy Lopez was convicted after a jury trial of assault in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree (two counts), and coercion in the first degree (four counts), and sentenced as a second violent felony offender. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The court also upheld the admission of evidence of prior incidents to show a common scheme or plan. Additionally, the defendant's CPL 440.10 motions asserting ineffective assistance of counsel were denied, as he was aware of the plea offer and had no interest in incarceration. The appellate court found no basis to reduce the sentence.

AssaultCoercionJury TrialSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationsCommon Scheme or PlanPrior IncidentsEffective Assistance of CounselPlea NegotiationsSentencing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Matter of Edwin Lopez v. Andrea Evans

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed an Appellate Division decision, holding that conducting a parole revocation hearing for a mentally incompetent parolee violates due process under the State Constitution. Petitioner Edwin Lopez, convicted of murder, was repeatedly found mentally unfit to stand trial for subsequent assault charges and committed to the Office of Mental Health (OMH). Despite his documented incompetency, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) initiated parole revocation proceedings against him. The Court explicitly overruled prior precedents that held incompetency as merely a mitigating factor, emphasizing that a parolee's inability to understand proceedings or assist counsel compromises the fairness and accuracy of such hearings. The Court also highlighted statutory gaps, noting that the Division of Parole lacks authority to commit mentally incompetent parolees to OMH, urging legislative intervention to address this disparity.

Mental CompetencyParole RevocationDue ProcessConstitutional LawCriminal Procedure LawOffice of Mental HealthDepartment of CorrectionsAdministrative Law JudgeAppellate ReviewReincarceration
References
9
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05325
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2025

Ramos v. Ford Found.

Plaintiff Miguel Ramos was injured when struck by a falling scaffold component. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment to defendants Ford Foundation and Henegan Construction Co., Inc. on plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) and common-law negligence claims, and on their contractual indemnification claim against Harbour Mechanical Corporation. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed Ford and Henegan's second third-party complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, vacating the dismissal of the contractual indemnification claim. It further granted Ford and Henegan conditional contractual indemnification from Harbour, while otherwise affirming the Supreme Court's decision, including the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Labor Law § 240(1)Scaffold AccidentFalling ObjectsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyAppellate ReviewNegligence Claims
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 437 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