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

Ralph v. Oliver

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, affirming in part and reinstating a cause of action. It was deemed proper to defer the plaintiff’s negligence claim against a coemployee defendant, pending a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the course of employment. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff could pursue an intentional tort of assault claim independently, as it falls outside the Workers’ Compensation Law if the assault was committed with deliberate intent and outside the scope of employment. Consequently, the plaintiff's assault cause of action was reinstated.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceIntentional TortAssaultCoemployee LiabilityScope of EmploymentJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Board Deferral
References
5
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

Claim of Hampton v. Neptune Meter Co.

A claimant, whose initial death benefits ceased upon a void second marriage, sought reinstatement of those benefits after discovering the marriage's invalidity. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled her application untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting the significant time lapse since the last benefit payment and the original husband's death. The court distinguished the case from precedent, emphasizing the absence of a timely application to reopen the matter within statutory limitations. Arguments regarding mistake were also rejected.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsDeath BenefitsVoid MarriageStatute of LimitationsReinstatement of BenefitsLump Sum PaymentAppellate DivisionJurisdictionTimeliness of Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Seymour v. Rivera Appliances Corp.

The decedent intervened in a workplace argument between coemployees Carmelo Cordero and Irma Rodriguez to assist Rodriguez, leading to a physical altercation. After a second fight outside the premises, Cordero and Rodriguez returned the next day and fatally shot the decedent. The Workmen's Compensation Board found the injury arose from employment, a decision the Appellate Division rejected. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that the decedent's intervention was work-related, establishing a nexus between the assault and employment. The court also determined that the decedent's pursuit of the coemployees outside and the 24-hour interval before the shooting did not necessarily break the employment relationship, thereby reinstating the board's award.

Assault at workWorkers' CompensationScope of EmploymentInterventionCoemployee disputeAccidental injuryCausationCooling-off periodAppellate reviewBoard findings
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1984

Stedman v. City of New York

This case concerns an appeal regarding a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff, a cab driver, was injured in an automobile accident and received workers' compensation benefits from the State Insurance Fund and no-fault benefits from Eagle Insurance Co. Plaintiff settled a personal injury action against Walther and the City of New York for $30,000, with Welsbach and Alfo Cab Co. as third-party defendants. The trial court initially granted a motion to vacate the workers' compensation lien but later reversed this decision. The appellate court unanimously reversed the vacatur, denied the motion to vacate the lien, and reinstated the lien, holding that the Fund's lien attaches to recoveries from non-covered persons (City of New York and Welsbach) for both economic and non-economic loss under Insurance Law § 673, subd 2.

Workers' Compensation LienNo-Fault BenefitsAutomobile AccidentThird-Party ActionSubrogationInsurance LawEconomic LossNoneconomic LossSettlement ProceedsStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamb v. Town of Esopus

Petitioner, employed as a building department aide since 2001, challenged respondent's decision to eliminate her full-time position in January 2005, replacing it with two part-time roles, which respondent claimed was for economy and efficiency. She initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement, back pay, and benefits, but the Supreme Court dismissed her application. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate continuous employment in a noncompetitive class for five years, which would grant Civil Service Law protection, and did not prove that the elimination of her position was motivated by bad faith or subterfuge. Furthermore, the court concluded that the respondent adhered to the doctrine of legislative equivalency, as the position was created and abolished by the same legislative means.

CPLR article 78Civil Service LawPublic employmentPosition eliminationReinstatementEconomy and efficiencyLegislative equivalency doctrineBad faithAppellate reviewGovernment restructuring
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 1993

Averys v. Kelly

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had granted a probationary New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer's petition for reinstatement and the ability to apply for disability retirement. The court found that the officer failed to prove that the Police Commissioner acted in bad faith by terminating her. Evidence showed the officer received sick leave, underwent medical evaluations, and was only discharged after demonstrating an inability to perform even limited police duties. The court also clarified that the Commissioner was not legally required to file for disability retirement on the officer's behalf. Furthermore, the officer's claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution was denied due to her failure to apply for benefits and prove the legislative scheme unconstitutional.

Probationary OfficerDisability RetirementBad Faith TerminationCPLR Article 78Police CommissionerNew York City Police DepartmentEqual Protection ClauseMedical EvaluationReinstatementNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division
References
14
Case No. 00-CV-8660
Regular Panel Decision

Debary v. Harrah's Operating Co., Inc.

This case, involving Catskill Development, L.L.C., Mohawk Management, L.L.C., and Monticello Raceway Development Co., L.L.C. (Original Plaintiffs) against Park Place Entertainment Corp., concerned allegations of tortious interference related to a proposed Native American casino project. Following multiple prior decisions and appeals, the Second Circuit remanded the case for the District Court to address jurisdictional issues and determine Monticello's status as a third-party beneficiary of the Land Purchase Agreement (LPA). The District Court confirmed subject matter jurisdiction after dismissing non-diverse parties and consolidating related actions. Ultimately, the court concluded that Monticello was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the LPA. Consequently, the District Court reinstated its earlier judgment, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing all claims in their entirety.

Tortious InterferenceContractual RelationsProspective Business AdvantageSummary JudgmentRemand OrderFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryLand Purchase AgreementNative American Casino Development
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc.

Plaintiff Erika Flores was fired by defendant Buy Buy Baby, Inc. on December 31, 1998, and filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and New York State Human Rights Law. Flores claims her supervisor's demeanor changed after disclosing her pregnancy and that her termination was discriminatory, despite no prior warnings. The defendant argued the termination was due to absenteeism and poor performance. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Flores presented sufficient evidence to create a material issue of fact regarding pretext. The court also denied the defendant's motion to strike claims for reinstatement and front pay, citing outstanding issues regarding the applicability of after-acquired evidence.

Pregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationPretextPrima Facie CaseAfter-Acquired EvidenceReinstatementFront Pay
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Puma

A defendant's van caused an accident with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer, striking and killing a highway worker. Evidence showed the defendant's speech was slurred, and a blood test revealed cocaine, methadone, and opiates, impairing his ability to react normally. The Grand Jury indicted the defendant for manslaughter, reckless driving, and other charges. The lower court dismissed several counts in the indictment, specifically counts one, two, four, five, and six, retaining counts three, seven, and eight. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating counts one (manslaughter in the second degree, reduced to criminally negligent homicide) and two (reckless driving) because the evidence was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Criminal LawManslaughterReckless DrivingDriving While Impaired by DrugsCriminally Negligent HomicideGrand Jury IndictmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceVehicle and Traffic LawPenal Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,374 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