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

Region v. W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding the electrocution death of a construction worker and the application of Labor Law § 240. The decedent, Grover J. Region, an ironworker employed by McBrearity's Metal Building Erectors, was fatally injured on November 18, 1982, when a crane cable he was helping to operate came into contact with high tension electric lines at a construction site in Ulster County. The plaintiff, administratrix of the decedent's estate, filed a lawsuit against property owner William J. Woodward and contractor W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc., among others, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide proper safety measures for crane operation near electrical hazards. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against Woodward and Woodward Construction, who subsequently appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that the defendants had violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to implement necessary safety precautions for the crane, which was being used as a hoist, thereby incurring absolute liability for the injuries proximately caused.

ElectrocutionConstruction AccidentCrane OperationLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityWorker SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
9
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06859
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Sariyah L.J. (Antonio J.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order that denied Antonio J.'s motion to vacate a default order which determined him to be a notice-only father. The court found that Antonio J. failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default, having chosen to attend a meeting with his shelter worker without notifying his attorney or the court. Furthermore, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as his affidavit did not establish substantial and continuous contact or financial support for the child, Sariyah L.J., in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]. The appeal from the underlying August 20, 2018 order was dismissed as nonappealable.

Family LawPaternityDefault JudgmentVacaturParental RightsChild CustodyAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessInfant CaseMotion Practice
References
4
Case No. 2021-03335
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2024

Matter of Smallman

This disciplinary proceeding addresses attorney Philip J. Smallman's professional misconduct involving a sexual relationship with his client, CL. CL was a vulnerable survivor of childhood and adult sex trafficking, a fact known to Smallman. The attorney engaged in a series of inappropriate sexual text messages and ultimately physical contact with CL in his office while representing her in a criminal matter. The court found that Smallman violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(j)(1)(ii) and 8.4(h) by employing coercion or undue influence. The Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report, which sustained both charges, was granted, and Smallman was suspended from practicing law for five years.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsDisciplinary actionAttorney suspensionSexual relations with clientVulnerable clientFiduciary dutySex trafficking survivorRules of Professional ConductAppellate Division Second Department
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

Nusio v. Legend Autorama, Ltd.

Donald J. Nusio, an injured plaintiff, and his wife sued Legend Autorama, Ltd. for personal injuries sustained while fixing a garage door on the defendant's premises. The plaintiff fell from a slipping ladder, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, then upon reargument, adhered to its denial for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence but granted it for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Crucially, it reversed the lower court's decision on the cross-appeal, thereby adhering to the original denial of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Ultimately, the Appellate Division determined that triable issues of fact existed for all alleged causes of action, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Dangerous ConditionWork Site SafetyGarage Door Repair
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J. Aron & Co. v. Chown

J. Aron & Co. (Aron) initiated a common law action in New York Supreme Court against the Chown Defendants (insurers) for breach of an insurance policy, seeking a judgment of at least $45 million for crude oil misappropriation. The Chown Defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting admiralty jurisdiction. Senior District Judge Milton Pollack ruled that Aron's election to file a common law action in state court, under the Saving to Suitors Clause (28 U.S.C. § 1333(1)), irrevocably prevented the federal court from acquiring original admiralty jurisdiction. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, emphasizing the need to respect state court jurisdiction. Consequently, finding a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court ordered the action remanded to the New York Supreme Court, New York County.

Admiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionSaving to Suitors ClauseCommon Law ActionMarine Insurance PolicyBreach of ContractSupplemental JurisdictionRemand OrderFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. J. Crew Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Soto, an employee of a commercial cleaning company, suffered injuries after falling from a ladder while dusting a display shelf at a J. Crew store. He sued J. Crew and The Mercer I L.L.C. under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The lower courts granted summary judgment to the defendants, classifying Soto's task as routine maintenance not covered by the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed, establishing criteria to differentiate routine cleaning from covered activities and concluding that dusting a display shelf was not within the statute's protective scope. The decision clarifies the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) regarding elevation-related risks in commercial cleaning.

Labor LawElevation RiskRoutine MaintenanceCommercial CleaningPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLadder FallWorkplace Safety
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1982

Claim of Fabrizio v. J. R. J. Concrete Corp.

Claimant, a construction foreman, sustained injuries in 1976 while employed by J. R. J. Concrete Corporation and was subsequently awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed the award amount, contending that the claimant had intentionally limited his income after the injury to continue receiving Social Security benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board concluded that the claimant did not limit his income. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the board's determination regarding factual questions and credibility, thus affirming the decision.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsSocial Security BenefitsAccidental DisabilityCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConstruction ForemanInjury ClaimBoard Determination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcellino v. Nigro

Plaintiff Anthony Marcellino sustained injuries after falling through an open stairwell while working as a bricklayer on a construction project owned by John J. Nigro and with Beltrone Construction Company, Inc. as the general contractor. Plaintiffs initiated a suit alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241-a, moving for partial summary judgment on liability. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment on indemnification claims. The Supreme Court denied all motions. The Appellate Division affirmed the denials, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable to a lack of planking and ruling that Labor Law § 241-a did not require planking at that specific level, while violations of administrative rules do not establish absolute liability due to potential contributory negligence. The court also affirmed the denial of indemnification as negligence by the contractor or subcontractor was not established.

Construction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsSummary JudgmentIndemnificationStairwell FallWorker SafetyContributory NegligenceStatutory InterpretationAdministrative RulesGeneral Contractor Liability
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04274
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2021

Matter of J.D. (S.A.--M.A.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed orders of disposition from the Bronx County Family Court, which found a respondent neglected and abused J.D. and derivatively neglected and abused adoptive children M.A. and E.A. The court based its decision on J.D.'s detailed out-of-court statements, corroborated by an older sibling's testimony and explicit photographs. The Family Court's decision to quash a subpoena for J.D.'s testimony due to potential psychological harm was also upheld. The ruling emphasized the respondent's impaired parental judgment demonstrated by long-term sexual abuse, creating a substantial risk to his children.

child abuseneglectFamily CourtAppellate Divisionparental judgmentout-of-court statementscorroborationsubpoenaPTSDderivative neglect
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 10,750 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