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. 2018 NY Slip Op 05347 [163 AD3d 885]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2018

Sanchez v. 3180 Riverdale Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Sanchez, was injured while performing construction work on premises owned by the defendant, 3180 Riverdale Realty, LLC. Sanchez, employed by nonparty Badaly & Badaly Construction, commenced an action for personal injuries, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the exclusivity defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing it was an alter ego of Sanchez's employer. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the order, finding the defendant failed to establish prima facie that it was an alter ego of the plaintiff's employer or controlled its day-to-day operations. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentSummary judgmentWorkers' Compensation exclusivityAlter ego doctrineLabor Law § 240(1)Premises liabilityAppellate reviewEmployer liabilityDay-to-day operations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1990

UBAF Arab American Bank v. Sanchez

Plaintiff UBAF Arab American Bank sued its former vice-president, Sanchez, for $11.5 million due to unauthorized foreign exchange transactions and falsified bank records. Plaintiff sought discovery of Sanchez's credit card and bank records, which was initially denied by protective orders citing privacy. After obtaining some Citibank records, plaintiff moved to reargue and renew these orders. The Supreme Court modified the previous orders, granting plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew. Consequently, protective orders were vacated regarding Sanchez's credit card records and a Citibank deposition, allowing further discovery, but affirmed the protective order concerning the Royce Hotel records. The court emphasized that discovery should facilitate proving a case and is not contingent on prior proof of financial benefit.

DiscoveryProtective OrderForeign ExchangeFalsifying RecordsBreach of Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentFraudBank RecordsCredit Card RecordsNon-party Deposition
References
4
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. 2016 NY Slip Op 00957 [136 AD3d 783]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Sanchez v. Metro Builders Corp.

Juan P. Sanchez initiated a personal injury lawsuit after falling three stories from a roof during snow removal, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against general contractor Metro Builders Corp. and subcontractor JMZ Builders, Inc. Metro, in turn, sought indemnification from JMZ and Sanchez's employers, Cocos Brothers. The Appellate Division ultimately granted Sanchez's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against Metro, finding Metro to be a statutory agent of the owner. Concurrently, Metro's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was granted, while its claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) were denied on the merits. Metro's indemnification claims against JMZ and Cocos Brothers were dismissed as untimely.

Workplace FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment GrantedGeneral ContractorStatutory AgentIndemnification ClaimsAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafety Devices
References
20
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05619 [232 AD3d 1024]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Matter of Sanchez v. Baldor Specialty Foods Inc.

Claimant Daysi Sanchez appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that Sanchez failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market and suspended her workers' compensation benefits for work-related injuries to her left knee, low back, and consequential depression. Sanchez, having a temporary partial disability, submitted employment applications, but many were for positions outside her medical restrictions. She also refused a light-duty work offer that explicitly accommodated her restrictions due to persistent pain. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's findings, concluding that they were supported by substantial evidence.

Labor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical RestrictionsLight-Duty WorkVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimEmployment Applications
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Ruben Sanchez sought judicial review of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff alleged disability since December 2012 due to multiple impairments including hypertension, diabetes, and COPD. His application was denied initially and on reconsideration, and an ALJ upheld the denial. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding that the ALJ's determination was supported by substantial evidence and any legal error was harmless, particularly regarding the number of jobs existing in the national economy and the evaluation of the plaintiff's intellectual impairment.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionResidual Functional CapacityVocational ExpertUnskilled WorkIntellectual ImpairmentSubstantial EvidenceHarmless ErrorJudgment on Pleadings
References
17
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00229 [168 AD3d 491]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2019

Sanchez v. 404 Park Partners, LP

Luis Sanchez, a construction worker, was injured after falling through an uncovered floor opening at a work site. He moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against the property owner, 404 Park Partners, LP, the general contractor, Sciame Construction, LLC, and subcontractor Cord Contracting Co. Inc., which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the liability findings against these parties, noting the owner and general contractor's statutory duties and the subcontractor's delegated duty to cover floor openings. Additionally, the court modified the lower court's indemnification rulings. It granted conditional full contractual indemnification to Sciame from United Air Conditioning Corp. II and conditional contractual indemnification to 404 Park and Sciame from Cord, contingent on the extent of their respective negligence, while also preserving factual issues concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Sciame.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ViolationsProximate Cause
References
6
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

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. 2025 NYSlipOp 06885
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2025

Sanchez v. 12E63, LLC

The plaintiffs, Santos Miguel Espinal Sanchez et al., appealed an order dismissing their personal injury complaint alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) during construction work on the defendant's property. The defendant, 12E63, LLC, had moved to dismiss based on documentary evidence, arguing homeowner exemption and lack of supervision, which the Supreme Court, Queens County, granted. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendant's documentary evidence did not conclusively refute the plaintiffs' factual allegations or establish a defense as a matter of law under CPLR 3211 (a)(1). Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied, reinstating the plaintiffs' claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSafe Place to WorkHomeowner ExemptionCPLR 3211 (a) (1)Motion to DismissAppellate ReviewDocumentary EvidenceReversed
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 20,518 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