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 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. No. 13
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2019

The People v. Omar Alvarez

Omar Alvarez appealed the denial of his writ of error coram nobis, alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. He claimed his original appellate counsel failed to challenge his 66 ⅔ years to life sentence as unduly harsh, submitted a deficient brief, and communicated poorly. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that counsel provided meaningful representation, highlighting the discretion afforded to appellate attorneys in selecting arguments. The court found no strategic reason for counsel to pursue an excessive sentence claim given the violent crimes and Alvarez's conduct. Dissenting opinions, however, criticized counsel's overall performance, particularly the brief's quality and the missed opportunity to argue for a sentence reduction, especially considering the defendant's youth at the time of the offense.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselAppellate CounselCoram NobisSentence ReviewUnduly Harsh SentenceMeaningful RepresentationCriminal Procedure LawCourt of AppealsNarcotics TraffickingHomicide Conviction
References
50
Case No. ADJ4016007
Regular
Oct 05, 2009

ROSA ALVAREZ, ROSA ALVAREZ-GARAY vs. WATERWAY PLASTICS, US FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The petition for reconsideration is granted to allow sufficient opportunity to further study the factual and legal issues.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWaterway PlasticsUS Fire Insurance CompanyMatrix Absence ManagementRosa AlvarezOpinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1998

Alvarez v. Jamnick Realty Corp.

The plaintiff Orlando Alvarez, an employee of Tru-Tone Metal Products, Inc., was injured at work and received Workers’ Compensation benefits. The plaintiffs then commenced an action against Jamnick Realty Corp., the building owner, and James Murtha, the sole shareholder of both Tru-Tone and Jamnick, alleging failure to maintain the premises. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike the affirmative defense of Workers' Compensation exclusivity. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment in favor of James Murtha, dismissing the complaint against him, and denying the plaintiffs’ cross motion to strike the affirmative defense, finding a triable issue of fact regarding Jamnick Realty Corp. being an alter ego of Tru-Tone.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate VeilPremises LiabilityShareholder LiabilityAppellate DivisionAffirmative DefenseMotion to Strike
References
4
Case No. CV-23-1582
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Rosa Romero

Claimant, Rosa Romero, sustained work-related injuries in 2015, including to her right knee, head, neck, and back. She was classified with a permanent partial disability but initially denied awards due to a failure to demonstrate attachment to the labor market. Following a change in case law, claimant sought a Schedule Loss of Use (SLU) award for her right leg, supported by her treating physician's opinion of a 65% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied this request, citing prior findings and the absence of a prior SLU application. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, ruling that since no initial award was made based on the nonschedule classification, claimant is entitled to an SLU award for her permanent partial impairments. The case has been remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsWage-Earning CapacityLabor Market AttachmentRight Knee InjuryMedical ImprovementAppellate ReviewRemittalCase Law Change
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosa v. Astrue

Ludina Rosa sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision to deny her claim for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Rosa had a complex administrative history, including multiple SSI applications and a prior decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finding her disabled for a specific period but not for the period prior to October 1, 1986. The Commissioner moved to dismiss Rosa's complaint challenging the ALJ's pre-1986 disability finding. The court, presided over by a United States Magistrate Judge, reviewed the Commissioner's motion and found that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial medical evidence, including findings from various doctors indicating Rosa's capacity for light work. Therefore, the Commissioner's motion to dismiss was granted.

Disability benefits appealSocial Security AdministrationSSI benefits denialFederal court reviewAdministrative Law Judge decisionResidual functional capacityMedical vocational guidelinesTreating physician rule exceptionSubstantial evidenceLight work capacity
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. IBM Restaurants Inc.

Plaintiffs Lucio Alvarez, et al., filed a putative collective action against IBM Restaurants, Roger Bedoian, Daniel Iannucci, and Vincenzo Iannucci, alleging unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. The plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of the class and to facilitate notice. The court granted the motion for conditional certification, establishing a class of employees who worked for the defendants in the last three years. The court further directed the parties to submit a revised Notice of Pendency, limiting the notice period to three years based on the FLSA's statute of limitations for willful violations, and ordered the defendants to produce a list of putative class members from November 4, 2007, to the present. The court also instructed that the revised notice should include minimum wage claims and deferred the defendants' request for removal of specific defendants.

FLSANew York State Labor LawCollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayMinimum WageWage and HourStatute of LimitationsNotice of PendencyEmployee Rights
References
28
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04241
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2017

Alvarez v. Vingsan Ltd. Partnership

Franklin G.S. Alvarez was injured after falling from an unsecured ladder while installing sheetrock at premises owned by Vingsan Limited Partnership and leased by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. He, along with his wife, sued alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), common-law negligence, and loss of consortium. Initially, procedural errors led to denials of summary judgment motions. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied JP Morgan's cross-motion to dismiss that cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and JP Morgan failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Ladder AccidentConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPremises LiabilityProximate CauseWorker SafetyUnsecured LadderReargument
References
11
Case No. 106 SSM 16
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

The Matter of Rosa Rizzo v. Thomas P. DiNapoli

Rosa Rizzo, a police officer, appealed a decision denying her accidental disability retirement benefits after she sustained a finger injury when a heavy metal door, known to slam automatically, was blown shut by a gust of wind. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that an injury resulting from ordinary employment duties without an unexpected event is not an accidental injury, especially since Rizzo was aware of the door's tendency to slam. The court concluded that the known condition was a risk of the worksite but not the cause of a compensable accident under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363. Judge Wilson dissented, arguing that the incident was an accident by common sense definition, criticizing the "reasonably anticipated" doctrine and the inconsistent application of the law, and calling for legislative action to clarify the statutory scheme for disability benefits.

Police OfficerAccidental Disability RetirementWorkplace InjuryGust of WindDefective DoorOrdinary Employment Risk"Unexpected Event" Doctrine"Reasonably Anticipated" StandardNew York Court of AppealsDissenting Opinion
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. City of New York

Plaintiff Gil Q. Alvarez, a New York City police officer, sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the NYPD and the City of New York. Alvarez contended that the defendants retaliated against him for refusing to participate in a police brutality cover-up and for filing a prior discrimination lawsuit. District Judge Chin denied the requests, ruling that Alvarez failed to show irreparable harm and was unlikely to succeed on the merits. The court noted Alvarez's attorney had invited the investigation to clear his client's name and that many claims were likely barred by a prior settlement and general release. Federalism and comity considerations also weighed against federal court intervention in the ongoing municipal agency inquiry.

RetaliationPolice MisconductInternal Affairs InvestigationTemporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionFirst Amendment RightsTitle VII ClaimNew York State Human Rights LawIrreparable HarmLikelihood of Success
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 243 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