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

Bartoo v. Buell

This case addresses whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) applies to structures used for both residential and commercial purposes. The court applies a "site and purpose" test to determine applicability. In Bartoo v Buell, the repair of a barn roof, used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage, was deemed primarily residential, thus granting the owner exemption. In Anderson v Flanagan, the addition of a bedroom to a home also operating a daycare center was found to be directly related to residential use, exempting the owner from liability. The Court concluded that owners of one- or two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work are shielded by the homeowner exemption when the work directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawDual-Use PropertyResidential UseCommercial UseStrict LiabilitySite and Purpose TestScaffold CollapseRoof RepairBedroom Addition
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1988

Osborn v. Planning Board of the Town of Colonie

Petitioners Betsy J. Osborn and Daniel L. Orne sought commercial site plan approval to use a portion of their Albany County home as a professional office for Osborn, a certified social worker, in an A-l residential zone. The Town of Colonie Planning Board initially denied their application, stating it was not a permitted use. After a CPLR article 78 proceeding compelled a decision, the Board formally denied the application, arguing the proposed office was not 'customarily incident and accessory' to residential use. The Supreme Court annulled the Board's decision and ordered approval, finding the proposed use qualified as an 'accessory use' under the Town's zoning code. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, holding that Osborn's professional office, which utilized less than 20% of the residence, maintained the residential character, and provided off-street parking, was clearly an accessory use, satisfying all ordinance requirements.

Zoning LawAccessory UseHome OccupationProfessional OfficeResidential ZoneCPLR Article 78Site Plan ApprovalAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. M2021-00927-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2022

James Williams v. Smyrna Residential, LLC

This appeal addresses the enforceability of an arbitration agreement in a wrongful death lawsuit. James Williams sued Smyrna Residential, LLC and Americare Systems, Inc., alleging their negligence led to his father's death in an assisted living facility. Defendants sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement signed by the decedent's daughter, Karen Sams, who held a durable power of attorney. The Trial Court denied the motion, finding Sams lacked authority as her POA did not cover healthcare decisions, and the wrongful death beneficiaries were not bound. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that executing the arbitration agreement was a healthcare decision, which Sams' general POA did not authorize. Furthermore, the court clarified that wrongful death beneficiaries bring their own right of action and are not bound by agreements to which they were not parties.

Arbitration AgreementWrongful DeathPower of AttorneyHealthcare DecisionsAgency AuthorityAssisted Living FacilityNegligenceAppellate ReviewContract LawTennessee Supreme Court Precedent
References
33
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25022
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of Mountainside Residential Care Ctr. (S.O.)

Mountainside Residential Care Center petitioned for a guardian for S.O., an undocumented stroke patient needing Medicaid for care. The Supreme Court, Delaware County, appointed S.O.'s children, C.O. and S.O., Jr., as co-guardians of his property. The core issue was granting guardians authority to interact with federal immigration agencies (USCIS/ICE) to pursue Permanent Residence Under Color of Law (PRUCOL) status, essential for S.O. to qualify for Medicaid benefits. The court granted this authority, emphasizing the guardians' discretion and the sealed nature of the case, to allow the family to navigate the complex process for obtaining critical healthcare funding.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonsMedicaid EligibilityUndocumented ImmigrantsPRUCOL StatusImmigration LawHealth Care BenefitsElder CareFamily GuardiansCourt Orders
References
1
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 22387 [77 Misc 3d 20]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2022

Singletary v. Residential Mgt. Inc.

The Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed a judgment against Residential Management Inc. et al., landlords, for civil penalties. The initial decision found the landlords liable for failing to correct housing violations, as established by tenant testimony, photographic evidence, and subsequent inspections by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The landlords' defense of lack of access was rejected, as the record indicated multiple access dates and testimony from their own workers inconsistent with denial of access. Furthermore, the court found the landlords' argument regarding the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause unpreserved and without merit, reasoning that the penalties served a remedial purpose to ensure compliance with housing standards. The court also determined that the penalty schedule was not grossly disproportionate to the offense, and landlords had the ability to mitigate fines by correcting violations promptly.

Housing ViolationsCivil PenaltiesLandlord LiabilityExcessive Fines ClauseEighth AmendmentAdministrative Code § 27-2115Lack of Access DefenseAppellate ReviewRemedial PurposeHousing Maintenance Standards
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Case No. 05-21-00758-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2022

Yvette Branch v. Laura McCaskill, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage NRT Texas LLC, Full Scope Property Inspection PLLC

Yvette Branch appealed a trial court's judgment awarding attorney's fees to Laura McCaskill, Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company, and NRT Texas, LLC. The case originated from a failed real estate transaction where Branch was the buyer and appellees represented the sellers. Branch subsequently sued the appellees, alleging various claims including violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), fraud, trespass, and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees on all claims and awarded them attorney's fees. On appeal, Branch challenged the attorney's fee award, arguing it was not authorized by contract, not justified under the DTPA, and not reasonable or necessary. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the attorney's fees were authorized by the 'related to this contract' clause in the real estate agreement and that the awarded amount was reasonable and necessary.

Attorney's FeesSummary JudgmentReal Estate ContractDeceptive Trade Practices ActTrespass ClaimNegligence ClaimFraud ClaimAppellate ReviewTexas Civil PracticePrevailing Party
References
12
Case No. 04-12-00702-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2013

John Homer Coonly (Appellant/Cross-Appellee) v. Gables Residential Services, Inc., D/B/A Gables West Avenue (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)

John Homer Coonly appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Gables Residential Services, Inc., which resulted in Coonly taking nothing on his claims for negligence, premises liability, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Coonly's claims stemmed from the theft and vandalism of his motorcycles from the apartment parking garage owned by Gables. Gables filed a cross-appeal regarding the denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on negligence and premises liability claims, finding the lease agreements validly waived such claims. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Coonly's DTPA claim, concluding that the waiver language in the agreements did not meet the DTPA's statutory requirements and Coonly's affidavit raised a material issue of fact regarding Gables' representations about the access gate.

NegligencePremises LiabilityDeceptive Trade Practices ActDTPASummary JudgmentLease AgreementExculpatory ClauseWaiver of LiabilityAttorney's FeesContract Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2012

Frigault v. Town of Richfield Planning Board

Petitioners, local citizens and property owners, challenged the Town of Richfield Planning Board's grant of a special use permit to Monticello Hills Wind, LLC for a six-wind turbine project. The challenge, a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Open Meetings Law, Town Law, and local ordinances. The Supreme Court annulled the negative declaration and special use permit due to Open Meetings Law and Town Law violations, though it upheld the SEQRA review. On cross-appeals, the higher court reinstated the negative declaration, finding the Board's SEQRA compliance sufficient and any Open Meetings Law violation did not warrant annulment. However, the special use permit's annulment was affirmed, as the Board failed to provide proper notice to the County Planning Department and lacked a rational explanation for compliance with the Town's special use permit ordinance.

Environmental Quality ReviewSpecial Use PermitWind TurbinesPlanning BoardOpen Meetings LawTown LawNegative DeclarationSEQRA ReviewJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feilen v. Christman

John Feilen was injured after falling off a roof while applying wood preservative to defendant Juli Christman's house, which also operated as a bed and breakfast. He and his wife sued Christman and her business, Jingle Bell Bed and Breakfast, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, applying the homeowner's exemption to the Labor Law claims, finding Christman did not supervise or control Feilen's work, and that the house's primary purpose remained residential despite a portion being used for a bed and breakfast. The appellate court affirmed this decision, reiterating that the homeowner's exemption depends on the 'site and purpose' of the work, and in this case, the roof work primarily benefitted the residential use of the premises.

Workers' CompensationHomeowner's ExemptionLabor LawRoof FallPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewResidential UseCommercial UseBed and Breakfast
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,926 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