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

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Reagan

This document presents a dissenting opinion regarding the dismissal of manslaughter and reckless endangerment charges against defendants Roger Reagan, Jr., Westar Mechanical, Inc., and 5L Enterprises, Inc. The charges stem from an incident where two workers drowned during a trench collapse at an excavation site. The County Court had dismissed these counts, citing insufficient evidence of recklessness. Judge O’Brien, in dissent, argues that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to establish that the defendants were aware of and consciously disregarded substantial risks, constituting a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. The dissent emphasizes the defendants' knowledge of trench instability and a pressurized sprinkler pipe, along with their failure to implement required safety measures like shoring, and concludes that the deaths were a foreseeable outcome of their reckless actions. Therefore, the dissenting judges advocate for reversing the dismissal order and reinstating the indictment counts.

Criminal NegligenceManslaughter Second DegreeReckless Endangerment Second DegreeTrench Collapse FatalityOSHA ViolationsSufficiency of Grand Jury EvidenceRecklessness StandardCorporate Criminal LiabilityForeseeable RiskIndictment Reinstatement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norcia v. Dieber's Castle Tavern, Ltd.

Angela Norcia suffered severe injuries when a speedboat operated by an intoxicated individual collided with her vessel. She initiated a "dram shop" personal-injury action against the owners and operators of the bars that served alcohol to the at-fault driver. Following a default judgment against the defendants, the court conducted an inquest to determine the appropriate amount of damages. The court awarded Plaintiff a total of $3,031,821.12, covering medical expenses, past lost earnings, and past and future pain and suffering. However, the court denied Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages, citing insufficient evidence to demonstrate willful, wanton, reckless, and intentional conduct by the defendants.

Personal injuryDram Shop ActBoating accidentAlcohol intoxicationDamages assessmentPain and sufferingLost earningsMedical expensesPunitive damagesDefault judgment
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Anayansi Blanchard v. Integrated Food Systems

Claimant, a 16-year-old, was shot during an armed robbery at her drive-thru window job after her supervisor allegedly kept her working past lawful hours. She contended that her employer intentionally and recklessly placed her in mortal peril, seeking to have her claim placed outside the exclusive liability limitations of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, and the employer's act of requiring her to work past lawful hours for minors did not constitute an exception to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was no evidence of willful intent to harm the claimant, even if the supervisor's conduct amounted to gross negligence or recklessness.

Workers' CompensationExclusive LiabilityIntentional TortEmployer NegligenceMinor EmploymentArmed RobberySupervisor ConductGross NegligenceRecklessnessWillful Intent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Plaintiff Ronald West was injured in 1991 when a 16" Goodyear tire he was mounting exploded on a 16.5" Budd wheel. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages, alleging defendants knew of the mismatch problem, failed to provide alternatives or warnings, and acted recklessly. Defendants moved to strike the punitive damages claim, treated as a motion for summary judgment. The court applied New York's demanding standard for punitive damages, requiring conduct "close to criminality." Despite defendants' knowledge of prior mismatch incidents and trade association discussions, the court found their actions, including size-stamping products and educational efforts, did not meet the standard of wanton or reckless disregard. The motion for summary judgment on punitive damages was granted, and the claim was dismissed.

Product LiabilityPunitive DamagesTire ExplosionManufacturing DefectWarning DefectSummary JudgmentReckless ConductMoral CulpabilityIndustry StandardsMismatch Hazard
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1990

People v. Pymm

This case examines whether federal regulation of workplace safety under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) preempts New York State's authority to criminally prosecute employers for conduct that results in unsafe working conditions. The corporate defendants, Pymm Thermometer Corporation and Pak Glass Machinery Corporation, along with their executives William Pymm and Edward Pymm, Jr., were convicted of various criminal charges, including conspiracy, assault, and reckless endangerment, stemming from severe mercury contamination at their Brooklyn facilities which caused neurological damage to an employee. The Trial Justice initially set aside the verdict, citing federal preemption, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, concluding that OSHA does not expressly or impliedly preempt state criminal prosecutions for employer conduct, emphasizing that state criminal laws serve distinct purposes of punishment and deterrence beyond OSHA's regulatory standards.

PreemptionOSHAWorkplace SafetyCriminal ProsecutionMercury PoisoningEmployer LiabilityState LawFederal LawHazardous ConditionsCorporate Crime
References
24
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 51549(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Milosevic v. O'Donnell

The motion court properly dismissed the fourth and fifth causes of action against Joost, which alleged negligence and intentional/wanton conduct. These claims failed under the theory of respondeat superior, as there was no evidence the coworker's alleged assault was within the scope of employment or condoned by Joost. Furthermore, the claims based on common-law negligence for sponsoring an event were also dismissed. The court found no allegations that Joost controlled the premises or was aware of the CFO's violent propensities when intoxicated. The decision highlighted that speculation about discovery would not prevent dismissal, and thus, the court did not need to address whether the claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law.

NegligenceRespondeat SuperiorAssaultEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityCommon-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewDismissal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2007

FCI Group, Inc. v. City of New York

This case involves an action brought by a contractor against the City of New York and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) for the balance due on a construction contract. The defendants contended that the plaintiff forfeited its right to further payment due to the attempted bribery of two city employees by the plaintiff's president. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, but this Court reversed that decision. It found that the contract's narrow alternative dispute resolution clause was inapplicable to the dispute. Crucially, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was bound by the contract’s forfeiture provision and that its enforcement did not offend public policy, as the unlawful conduct was central to the performance of the contract, thereby barring recovery.

Construction ContractContract ForfeitureBriberyPublic PolicyAlternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Summary JudgmentUnlawful GratuitiesEthical ConductContract InterpretationNew York City Charter
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Addei v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

A surgeon's medical license was revoked by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct due to findings of moral unfitness from sexual harassment of co-workers and fraudulent practice on employment applications. The petitioner challenged this determination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court upheld the Committee's jurisdiction and the findings of moral unfitness and fraud, dismissing claims of statutory vagueness. However, the court deemed the penalty of license revocation excessively harsh and "shocking to one’s sense of fairness" given mitigating factors, equivocal findings on the fraud charge, and no impact on patient care. Consequently, the court indicated that the severe penalty should not stand.

Professional MisconductLicense RevocationMoral UnfitnessFraudulent PracticeSexual HarassmentEmployment ApplicationsDue ProcessVague StatuteDisproportionate PenaltyCPLR Article 78
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

People v. Andrus

Defendant appealed a judgment convicting him of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child. He argued his Miranda rights were violated, but the court found a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. The court also rejected his claim that a social worker acted as a law enforcement agent without issuing Miranda warnings, noting the interview's timing and continuous custody. Furthermore, police deception regarding a polygraph did not coerce his statement or deny due process. His challenge to his Alford plea was unpreserved, and the sentence was deemed appropriate.

Miranda rightsWaiver of rightsRight to counselPolice interrogationSocial worker interviewLaw enforcement agencyVoluntariness of confessionPolice deceptionPolygraph examinationDue process
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,381 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