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. 2022 NY Slip Op 04040 [206 AD3d 945]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2022

Rendon v. Callaghan

The plaintiff, Vicente Rendon, sustained injuries after a garage roof he was repairing on premises owned by the defendant, Anna Callaghan, collapsed. Rendon filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Callaghan, ruling that she did not supervise the work and was protected by the homeowners' exemption under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that Callaghan had no notice of any structural defect for the Labor Law § 200 claim. The court further held that the homeowners' exemption applied because the garage served a residential purpose as an 'extension of the dwelling,' despite being on a separate lot, and Callaghan did not direct or control the plaintiff's work.

Personal injurySummary judgmentHomeowners' exemptionLabor LawRoof collapseDangerous conditionAppellate reviewResidential propertySupervisory controlLatent defect
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2012

Cioffi v. Target Corp.

Peter Cioffi, an employee of Communication Technology Services (CTS), was injured after falling from a ladder while working at a Target store. He and his wife sued Target Corporation and related entities (the Target defendants), alleging, among other things, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment to dismiss this claim, but later, upon reargument, granted them. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's reargument decision, thereby reinstating the original denial of summary judgment against the Target defendants. The court found that it could not be determined as a matter of law that the injured plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident or that he was a recalcitrant worker, nor was the activity unprotected under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentReargumentAppellate ReviewLadder FallWorkplace AccidentConstruction SiteContractor LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
9
Case No. Civ. 79-714
Regular Panel Decision

Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Diamond Shamrock Corp.

This case involves several pending motions before Chief Judge Curtin concerning patent infringement disputes between E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company and Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation (plaintiffs) against Diamond Shamrock Corporation (defendant). The court addressed Du Pont's motion to vacate a prior order joining it as an involuntary plaintiff, which was denied. Diamond's motion to consolidate two related cases, Civ. 79-714 and Civ. 79-794, was granted in the interest of judicial economy. Additionally, Diamond's motion to file an amended counterclaim was partially granted, allowing the assertion of new claims for infringement of the Dotson '194 patent and unfair competition, including a new jury trial right for these specific issues. The court clarified that the jury trial right for previously asserted claims was waived.

Patent InfringementMotion PracticeCase ConsolidationAmended CounterclaimJury Trial WaiverPendent JurisdictionRule 19(a) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 42 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 13 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 38(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunbar v. Landis Plastics, Inc.

Petitioner Sandra Dunbar, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), sought injunctive relief against Landis Plastics, Inc. under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. The court addressed Landis's motion for reconsideration of a previous order, its motion to strike the appearance of United Steelworkers' counsel, and the merits of the NLRB's petition. The court denied Landis's motions and the NLRB's request for interim promotions. However, the court granted the NLRB's request for injunctive relief regarding general workplace practices, and ordered interim reinstatement for Kathy Saumier and Clara Sullivan, along with the rescission of unlawful disciplinary notices.

National Labor Relations ActSection 10(j)Injunctive ReliefUnfair Labor PracticesUnion OrganizingReinstatementDiscriminatory DischargeAmicus CuriaeLabor LawCollective Bargaining
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23398 [81 Misc 3d 21]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C. v. Global Commodities, Inc.

Plaintiff, Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C., filed a commercial claims action against Global Commodities, Inc. for $5,000 for unpaid medical services provided to an alleged employee. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay privately. The District Court dismissed the action after excluding a document detailing telephone conversations, which plaintiff argued was admissible under the business records exception or relaxed commercial claims evidence rules. The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal, ruling that plaintiff failed to prove the patient was injured during employment or that the document was admissible as a business record, thus failing to establish defendant's liability for the medical bill. The court emphasized that while commercial claims courts are not bound by strict evidence rules, judgments cannot rest solely on hearsay.

Commercial claimsMedical servicesUnpaid billsBusiness records exceptionHearsayEvidence rulesEmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial justice
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 20,441 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