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
Nov 25, 1998

Lopez v. Tarana

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in three related actions concerning wrongful death and personal injuries stemming from a car accident. An intoxicated employee, Cynthia Tarana, after drinking at an unofficial work event, caused an accident resulting in one death and two injuries. The Supreme Court initially found Tarana negligent and her employer, C & H Pizza Corp., and supervisor, Denise LaBarbera, liable under the 'social host' statute, awarding damages to the plaintiffs Annette Lopez, Kara Kissane, and Catherine Rubino. The appellate court reversed the judgment, citing errors in determining the supervisor's scope of employment, the omission of fault apportionment for the employer and driver, and the award of damages to Annette Lopez without proof of economic loss. Consequently, the complaint seeking damages for Annette Lopez personally was dismissed, and a new trial was granted for the remaining causes of action.

Wrongful deathPersonal injuryVehicular manslaughterIntoxicated drivingSocial host liabilityScope of employmentJury verdictDamagesAppellate reviewReversal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Rutgers Cas. Ins. Co.

Plaintiff Gerver Lopez sued Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company to enforce an unsatisfied judgment against #1 Realty, alleging #1 Realty was an additional insured under a policy issued by Rutgers to Cavallaro Contracting, Inc. The court examined whether #1 Realty qualified as an insured and if certificates of insurance issued by Cavallaro's broker could establish coverage or estop Rutgers from denying it. The court found that #1 Realty was not named in the policy as an insured, and the certificates of insurance, issued by a broker not acting as Rutgers' agent, were insufficient to confer coverage. Consequently, the court granted Rutgers' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Lopez's claims.

Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary Judgment MotionAdditional Insured StatusCertificate of Insurance ValidityAgency LawEquitable EstoppelPolicy InterpretationExclusion ClausesNotice of OccurrenceMaterial Misrepresentation
References
47
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00654 [179 AD3d 1414]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Puli-Lopez v. Triple 888 Dev. Group LLC

Milton Puli-Lopez, a construction laborer, filed a workers' compensation claim after sustaining injuries, identifying Triple 888 Development Group LLC as his employer. The Workers' Compensation Board modified an earlier WCLJ decision, concluding that Puli-Lopez was solely employed by Triple 888 Development Group LLC and that no general/special employment relationship existed with East 119th Street Development LLC, despite shared ownership and property management. Triple 888 and East 119th appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the claimant's application for review was incomplete and that the WCLJ's findings were supported by evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in reviewing the claimant's application and concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination regarding sole employment.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipGeneral/Special EmployerConstruction InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceEmployer LiabilityAdministrative ProcedureRegulatory Compliance
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03556 [217 AD3d 636]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2023

People v. Lopez

Sammy Lopez was convicted after a jury trial of assault in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree (two counts), and coercion in the first degree (four counts), and sentenced as a second violent felony offender. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, finding the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence. The court also upheld the admission of evidence of prior incidents to show a common scheme or plan. Additionally, the defendant's CPL 440.10 motions asserting ineffective assistance of counsel were denied, as he was aware of the plea offer and had no interest in incarceration. The appellate court found no basis to reduce the sentence.

AssaultCoercionJury TrialSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility DeterminationsCommon Scheme or PlanPrior IncidentsEffective Assistance of CounselPlea NegotiationsSentencing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Matter of Edwin Lopez v. Andrea Evans

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed an Appellate Division decision, holding that conducting a parole revocation hearing for a mentally incompetent parolee violates due process under the State Constitution. Petitioner Edwin Lopez, convicted of murder, was repeatedly found mentally unfit to stand trial for subsequent assault charges and committed to the Office of Mental Health (OMH). Despite his documented incompetency, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) initiated parole revocation proceedings against him. The Court explicitly overruled prior precedents that held incompetency as merely a mitigating factor, emphasizing that a parolee's inability to understand proceedings or assist counsel compromises the fairness and accuracy of such hearings. The Court also highlighted statutory gaps, noting that the Division of Parole lacks authority to commit mentally incompetent parolees to OMH, urging legislative intervention to address this disparity.

Mental CompetencyParole RevocationDue ProcessConstitutional LawCriminal Procedure LawOffice of Mental HealthDepartment of CorrectionsAdministrative Law JudgeAppellate ReviewReincarceration
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01372 [159 AD3d 1092]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2018

Lopez v. 6071 Enters., LLC

John Lopez, a truck driver employed by Otsego Auto Crushers, LLC, suffered a work-related injury on December 14, 2011, when he was thrown from a pile of crushed cars while assisting a coworker load an open trailer. He commenced an action against 6071 Enterprises, LLC, the property owner, asserting claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that the plaintiff's activity did not constitute a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the defendant, as owner, did not exercise supervisory control over the work methods to incur liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence.

Workers' CompensationLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevation-Related RiskConstruction AccidentSafe Place to WorkAltering StructureErecting Structure
References
24
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00281
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2025

Santana v. San Mateo Constr. Corp.

William Santana appealed an order dismissing his complaint against San Mateo Construction Corp. and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying dismissal of the first cause of action entirely and partially denying dismissal of the second cause of action. The court held that Administrative Code § 19-142, which mandates prevailing wages for work involving street use or opening, applies broadly and not solely to public works projects. It affirmed that workers, as third-party beneficiaries, can enforce agreements made under this provision, and contractual disclaimers of these rights are void against public policy.

Prevailing wagesAdministrative Code § 19-142Third-party beneficiary rightsContractual disclaimersPublic policyMotions to dismissAppellate reviewLabor lawConstruction contractsStreet permits
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06481 [222 AD3d 526]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2023

Lopez v. 106 LPA LLC

The case involves an injured worker, Gersson Lopez, who was struck by a concrete form at a construction site. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed motions for summary judgment concerning Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The court modified the lower court's order by denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-2.2 (d) and reinstated that claim. It otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding the applicability of the Labor Law sections. An appeal from a motion for leave to reargue was dismissed as nonappealable.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodeAppellate DivisionTriable Issues of FactPlaintiff InjuryWorksite AccidentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00132
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2023

Matter of Lopez v. Platoon Constr., Inc.

Hector R. Tejada Lopez, a carpenter, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining injuries from a fall while employed by Platoon Construction, Inc. Platoon Construction, Inc. failed to appear at scheduled hearings, resulting in the establishment of the claim and a finding that Platoon was the employer. Platoon's subsequent applications for a rehearing and then for reconsideration and/or full Board review were both denied by the Workers' Compensation Board. Platoon appealed the denial of reconsideration to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the merits of the underlying December 2020 decision were not properly before them, and the Board's denial of reconsideration was neither arbitrary and capricious nor an abuse of discretion.

Appellate ReviewReconsideration ApplicationFull Board ReviewDenial of ApplicationEmployer LiabilityFailure to AppearIndependent Contractor StatusProcedural Due ProcessStatutory Appeal PeriodAbuse of Discretion Standard
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez-Serrano v. Rockmore

Karla Lopez-Serrano sued her former employer, Allison Rockmore, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid minimum wage, overtime, and retaliation. Rockmore filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, citing insufficient pleading, mootness due to tendered wages, and untimely claims. Lopez-Serrano cross-moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. The court denied Rockmore's motion to dismiss, finding that Lopez-Serrano plausibly stated claims for minimum wage and overtime for specific workweeks, and her retaliation claim was timely. The court granted Lopez-Serrano's cross-motion for leave to amend her complaint.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and HourMinimum WageOvertime WagesRetaliationMotion to DismissLeave to AmendPleading StandardsStatute of Limitations
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 300 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