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
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7 World Trade Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves an appeal where plaintiffs sought damages from Westinghouse Electric Corp. for negligent design and manufacture, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty after explosions in bus ducts supplied by Westinghouse caused injury to workers and damage to the ducts at 7 World Trade Center. The trial court found Westinghouse 70% liable for negligence and strict liability. However, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, vacated the prior damage award, and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that under the economic loss rule established in Bocre Leasing Corp. v General Motors Corp., plaintiffs could not recover for purely economic losses in tort without allegations of bodily injury or damage to other property. The court clarified that personal injury claims by workers did not extend to the plaintiffs' economic losses and that the Bocre rule applies to immediate purchasers.

Product LiabilityEconomic Loss RuleNegligenceStrict LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantyAppellate ReviewTort LawDamagesBus DuctsWorld Trade Center
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Robinson v. Holiday Showcase Restaurants, Inc.

Claimant sustained a left knee injury in 1995, later including reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). Indemnity benefits were settled in 2002 with a $27,000 lump-sum payment, with the employer's carrier retaining liability for medical treatment. In 2005, the carrier sought to transfer medical liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied this, ruling that the three-year lapse period from the last compensation payment had not passed, as the lump-sum settlement was allocated to extend benefits until December 31, 2008, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (7). This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the carrier's argument that § 25-a (7) applies only to nonschedule adjustment settlements and found no basis to disturb the Board's conclusion.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLump Sum SettlementMedical LiabilityIndemnity BenefitsReflex Sympathetic DystrophyStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 34182(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2007

Williams v. 7-31 Limited Partnership

This case involves an appeal concerning a Labor Law § 200 claim and common-law negligence claims against Independent Aerial Equipment, an equipment lessor, brought by an unnamed plaintiff. Independent Aerial Equipment, also a third-party plaintiff, sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims and to enforce contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Enclos Corp. The lower court denied Independent's motion regarding the plaintiff's claims and granted Enclos's motion to dismiss the indemnification claim. The appellate court modified the decision, granting Independent's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim, ruling that as an equipment lessor, Independent was not liable under the statute. However, issues of fact regarding Independent's potential negligence in supplying a defective scissor lift remained, rendering the contractual indemnification clause unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The lower court's decision was otherwise affirmed.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationEquipment Lessor LiabilityScissor Lift AccidentThird-Party ClaimsGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Appellate ReviewDuty to Provide Safe Workplace
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Khan

7-Eleven, Inc. filed a complaint against Tariq A. Khan, Senita Khan, Farouq Khan, and Imran M. Khan (the Khans), franchisee-owners and employees of five 7-Eleven stores on Long Island. 7-Eleven alleged that the Defendants diverted profits from 2009 to 2013 in violation of their franchise agreements. Both parties moved for injunctive relief, and United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay recommended granting 7-Eleven’s motion and denying the Khans’ motion. The District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, reviewed objections to this report. The Court found substantial evidence of fraud, including unrecorded sales, misuse of POS keys, and significant inventory shortages. Consequently, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting 7-Eleven's motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the Khans' cross-motion for injunctive relief.

Franchise Agreement DisputePreliminary InjunctionFraudulent TransactionsPOS System MisuseInventory ShortagesTrademark InfringementBreach of ContractDe Novo ReviewMagistrate Judge ReportIrreparable Harm
References
34
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04711
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Orellana v. 7 W. 34th St., LLC

Plaintiff Jose Orellana, a worker performing demolition, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while cutting an air duct. He initiated legal action against the building owner, 7 West 34th Street, LLC, and the general contractor, W5 Group, LLC, under Labor Law § 240 (1). Both parties sought summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing the presence of triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that neither Orellana nor the defendants had demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The court also clarified that comparative negligence is not a valid defense against the strict liability imposed by Labor Law § 240 (1), reinforcing the finding of unresolved factual disputes.

Ladder AccidentDemolition InjuriesConstruction SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment DenialAppellate ReviewStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceTriable Issues of FactPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Guido

This case addresses the appropriate commission for a Chapter 7 trustee under 11 U.S.C. section 326(a). The trustee sought the maximum statutory commission of $16,705.95, calculated from a $269,118.91 base derived from the debtor's personal injury settlement. The debtor objected, arguing against a 'double-charge' on funds already disbursed to personal injury counsel and the worker’s compensation carrier. The court ruled that the commission base should only include funds actually received by the trustee, not those subject to constructive liens or paid directly to other parties. Considering the trustee's limited time investment of approximately 15 hours, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the commission to $3,642, based solely on the $28,921.65 distributed to unsecured creditors. The decision emphasizes that the statutory maximum is not a minimum and that, in cases where the burden falls heavily on an injured individual, sound discretion favors maximizing distribution to the debtor.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Trustee Compensation11 U.S.C. Section 326(a)Personal Injury SettlementAsset AdministrationSecured CreditorsUnsecured CreditorsJudicial DiscretionCost Efficiency
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,433 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