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
Sep 13, 2012

Penaranda v. 4933 Realty, LLC

Plaintiff, an employee of K&S Construction, sustained injuries after being thrown from a Bobcat within a warehouse owned by the defendant landlord. The incident occurred while the plaintiff was removing plywood, an activity he claimed was necessary for a concrete curb construction project. The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff's plywood removal qualified as construction work under the Labor Law, entitling him to its protections. The court found a question of fact regarding whether the work was "necessary and incidental" to the construction. Consequently, the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was reinstated, and the third-party complaint for contractual indemnity against K&S Construction was also reinstated, while other aspects of the lower court's decision were affirmed.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintIndemnityBobcat AccidentGravity-Related EventCounterweightAppellate ReviewQuestion of Fact
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. v. Rocco

Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. and Patrick Butler appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment dismissing their complaint for breach of contract. The plaintiff, a licensed home improvement contractor, was fired by the defendants during a renovation project in Nassau County. The defendants claimed the plaintiff used unlicensed subcontractors, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The appellate court dismissed Patrick Butler's appeal but reversed the order for Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. It ruled there was a factual dispute regarding whether the workers hired by the plaintiff were independent contractors requiring licenses or employees exempt under Nassau County Administrative Code, thereby reinstating the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentHome Improvement ContractorsUnlicensed SubcontractorsEmployee-Employer RelationshipAppellate ReviewContract DisputeNassau County Administrative CodeCPLRReinstatement of Complaint
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 1998

Browning v. County Fence Co.

The Supreme Court of Westchester County erred in applying Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as amended, to a third-party action. The appellate court determined that the amendment should be applied prospectively to actions commenced by employees after its effective date. Although the third-party action itself was commenced after the amendment's effective date, the main action by the employee predated it. Consequently, the amendment was deemed inapplicable, leading to the reversal of the order that had dismissed the third-party complaint. The third-party complaint was therefore reinstated.

Personal Injury DamagesThird-Party ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Statutory AmendmentsProspective ApplicationAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissIndemnificationNew York Supreme CourtCase Precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2015

Evans, Ralph Kenneth

This document contains two criminal complaints filed by Ralph-Kenneth Evans. He alleges violations of his constitutional rights and various federal and state codes by officials in Grand Saline and Van Zandt County, Texas. Evans claims unlawful arrest for driving without a license, fraud, extortion, and deprivation of liberty, asserting that the legal system is operating unconstitutionally. The complaints also include a "Surrender of Social Security Card and Number" and a "Release of Power of Appointment," challenging government agencies' jurisdiction over him as a private state citizen. He references numerous legal codes and case precedents to support his claims of sovereign status and demands cessation of alleged trespasses.

Criminal ComplaintConstitutional RightsDue ProcessRight to TravelHabeas CorpusTaxationSocial SecuritySovereign CitizenJurisdictionFraud
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2011

Vazquez v. Diamondrock Hospitality Co.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment that dismissed a complaint and all cross-claims against Diamondrock Hospitality Company and Courtyard Management Corporation. The lower court had granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court modified this decision, denying Diamondrock's motion for summary judgment concerning the dismissal of cross-claims against it and converting the cross-claim into a third-party claim. The court determined that Diamondrock, as the premises owner, had a common-law and nondelegable duty to maintain safe premises and elevators, and failed to demonstrate a complete relinquishment of control. The dismissal of cross-claims against Courtyard was affirmed due to the Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity bar, as Marriott, the plaintiff's employer, was deemed Courtyard’s alter ego. The original plaintiff's complaint was not reinstated because the plaintiff did not appeal.

Summary judgmentCross claimsPremises liabilityElevator maintenanceOut-of-possession ownerAlter egoWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewCommon-law dutyNondelegable duty
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marchant v. Schenley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Howard M. Marchant initiated an action against Schenley Industries, Inc., and Schenley Affiliated Brands Corp., alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) following his termination at age 54. Marchant sought to amend his complaint to include state claims for breach of contract and tortious discharge, and to request remedies such as reinstatement. The Court granted the plaintiff's motions to amend the complaint but dismissed the tortious discharge claim, finding it unrecognized under Tennessee law, and granted partial summary judgment to the defendants on the breach of contract claim. While denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the original ADEA complaint, the Court granted partial summary judgment against the plaintiff on the issue of damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress under the ADEA. However, the plaintiff's request for reinstatement or damages in lieu of reinstatement was granted, allowing these claims to proceed.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractTortious DischargeSummary JudgmentFederal Civil ProcedurePendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionTennessee Employment LawRemedies
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. Perry Street Development Corp.

The plaintiff appealed from an order denying summary judgment against defendants J 40, LLC, J Construction Company, LLC, Perry Street Development Corp., and West Perry Garage, LLC, and granting the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the complaint for personal injuries sustained at a construction site. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law sections 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200/common-law negligence when a ladder fell, striking him and a worker. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, ruling that there was a triable issue of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status and the defendants' prima facie entitlement to dismissal. The appellate court reversed the judgment and modified the order, denying the defendants' cross-motions and reinstating the complaint, finding that the defendants failed to establish the absence of a causal nexus between the injury and a lack of safety devices, and failed to negate the applicability of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (4) (iv), or show lack of control over work methods under Labor Law § 200. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, and the plaintiff's complaint against all defendants is reinstated.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment AppealWorkplace SafetyLadder FallAppellate Court DecisionTriable Issues of FactEmployer LiabilitySite Owner Liability
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walstein v. Blank

The plaintiff, an unnamed barmaid, filed a complaint against her employer, Erna Blank, and coemployee, Boger Croudy, after sustaining injuries from an assault by Croudy during her employment. Defendant Erna Blank moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to allege that the employer did not provide workers' compensation insurance or instigated the assault. Citing the Workmen's Compensation Law, the court ruled that the plaintiff's injuries arose in the course of employment, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. Consequently, the court granted the defendant Erna Blank's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissAssaultCo-employee InjuryExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityComplaint Sufficiency
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,555 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