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

Alex Irrizarry Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

Plaintiff Alex Irrizarry Deleon sued New York City, its Department of Sanitation, and employee Robert R Falcaro for personal injuries after Falcaro's street sweeper collided with Deleon's vehicle. The core legal dispute involved whether an ordinary negligence standard or a reckless disregard standard applied to the sanitation worker's actions. The court clarified that the reckless disregard standard, as per Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) and 34 RCNY 4-02 (d) (1) (iv), applied because Falcaro was engaged in highway maintenance. Despite this, the court concluded that material issues of fact remained regarding Falcaro's recklessness and Deleon's own negligence, preventing summary judgment for the defendants. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order, which denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, was affirmed, and the certified question was answered in the affirmative.

Street Sweeper AccidentPersonal InjuryReckless Disregard StandardOrdinary Negligence StandardSummary JudgmentVehicle and Traffic LawMunicipal LiabilityRules of the City of New YorkProximate CauseContributory Negligence
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05788, 187 AD3d 953
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2020

Rascelles v. State of New York

The claimant, Scott L. Rascelles, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between his moped and a New York State Department of Transportation dump truck. The Court of Claims initially found the State 100% liable, concluding the DOT workers exhibited 'reckless disregard' under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this judgment, finding the evidence insufficient to establish reckless disregard, even while accepting the lower court's factual findings. Consequently, the claim against the State was dismissed, and Rascelles' cross-appeal was also dismissed as he was not an aggrieved party.

Personal InjuryMoped AccidentState VehicleReckless DisregardVehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b)Appellate DivisionCourt of ClaimsLiability DeterminationJudgment ReversalClaim Dismissal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.

Mario Maltese and Savino Stallone, mechanics at Con Edison, contracted mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure from turbines sold by Westinghouse Corporation. Their estates and Stallone's wife sued multiple defendants, including Westinghouse, with a jury finding Westinghouse 20% liable. The jury also found Westinghouse demonstrated reckless disregard for safety and assessed punitive damages, but the trial court set these findings aside. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, and the higher court agreed, finding insufficient evidence for reckless disregard based on a gross negligence standard. The court concluded that Westinghouse's general awareness of asbestos risks wasn't enough to prove they knew Maltese or Stallone were at risk at a time they could have warned them.

MesotheliomaAsbestos exposureProduct liabilityReckless disregardPunitive damagesGross negligence standardJury verdictAppellate reviewCon EdisonWestinghouse Corporation
References
2
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. ADJ8739181
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

JOHN JOAQUIN (deceased), JENNIFER JOAQUIN, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for ANNAMARIE JOAQUIN, MAKAHLAH LYNN JOAQUIN, IZABEL TRINITY JOAQUIN vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by YORK

This case concerns a deceased worker's family seeking increased compensation due to alleged serious and willful misconduct by the employer, San Diego Unified School District. The WCAB affirmed the judge's finding that the employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct, as the employer's actions were deemed a mistake in judgment rather than intentional disregard of danger. The Board also upheld the exclusion of evidence regarding a subsequent remedial measure taken by the employer. A dissenting opinion argued that the employer's decision to send the employee to a dangerous roadside repair location demonstrated reckless disregard for safety, warranting a finding of serious and willful misconduct.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Mercer-Fraser Co.subsequent remedial measureEvidence Code section 1151roadside repairdangerous conditionreckless disregardJohns-Manville Sales Corp.Hawaiian Pineapple Co.
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2003

People v. Swinton

The defendants appealed their convictions for assault, reckless endangerment, and endangering the welfare of a child, stemming from their strict vegetarian diet provided to their infant daughter, which led to severe malnutrition. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially convicted them. On appeal, the higher court modified the judgments by vacating the reckless endangerment conviction, deeming it a lesser-included offense of assault, but affirmed the assault and child endangerment convictions. A dissenting opinion argued for the reversal of the assault convictions, contending that the evidence did not sufficiently prove the defendants' conscious disregard of risks, but rather misguided parental beliefs. The majority, however, found the evidence legally sufficient for the remaining charges.

Criminal LawAppealChild EndangermentMalnutritionAssault First DegreeReckless Endangerment First DegreeLesser-Included OffenseParental NeglectDietary PracticesWeight of Evidence
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gobindram v. Bank of India

Kailash Gobindram appealed a Bankruptcy Court order that denied his discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A) for making false oaths in his Chapter 7 petition. The Bankruptcy Court found Gobindram demonstrated reckless disregard for the truth by omitting material information about pre-petition transfers of over $120,000 in tax refunds to creditors and insiders. Gobindram argued the Bankruptcy Court erred in finding fraudulent intent and rejecting his advice of counsel defense. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision, concluding that Gobindram's admitted failure to read his petition before signing it constituted reckless indifference to the truth, equivalent to fraudulent intent, and that his reliance on counsel was unreasonable given the 'transparently plain' nature of the omissions.

BankruptcyDischarge DenialFalse OathFraudulent IntentReckless DisregardAdvice of CounselChapter 7OmissionsTax RefundsPre-petition Transfers
References
39
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

Gregware v. City of New York

This appeal concerns a multivehicle collision on the West Side Highway where plaintiffs alleged negligence and reckless disregard by the City of New York and Burtis Construction Co. in setting up an unsafe lane closure. The jury found both defendants negligent and reckless, awarding significant damages to plaintiff James Gregware for his debilitating injuries, and to his wife for loss of services. The appellate court addressed issues regarding plaintiffs' counsel's summation remarks and the apportionment of damages. While finding the remarks regrettable but not depriving the defendant of a fair trial, the court determined that the 65%-35% liability apportionment between the City and Burtis was against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment regarding liability and damages, but modified it to grant the City's cross-claim for indemnification and remanded the case for a new trial solely on the apportionment of liability between the City and Burtis.

Multivehicle collisionWest Side HighwayLane closureNegligenceReckless disregardConstruction projectApportionment of liabilityDamagesPain and sufferingLoss of services
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 291 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