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 01758 [203 AD3d 531]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2022

Valentine v. 2147 Second Ave. LLC

Michael Valentine, a project safety coordinator for Homeland Safety Consultants, sued 2147 Second Avenue LLC and other defendants for injuries sustained at a demolition and construction site. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted summary judgment to defendants Gary Silver Architects, P.C. and Sunshine Quality Construction, Inc., dismissing the complaint against them, and denied Valentine's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding no evidence of affirmative negligence by GSA and concluding that Sunshine was not on site as a general contractor until after the accident. The court also upheld the denial of Valentine's Labor Law claim, noting it was never properly pleaded in his complaints.

Demolition ProjectConstruction AccidentProject Safety CoordinatorSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Affirmative NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityPleading AmendmentsAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feltman v. Kossoff & Kossoff LLP (In re TS Emp't, Inc.)

The case involves a Chapter 11 Trustee, James S. Feltman, for TS Employment, Inc. (TSE), who filed a second amended complaint against Kossoff & Kossoff LLP and Irwin Kossoff. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Trustee's claims were barred by the Wagoner rule, which typically prevents a bankrupt corporation from suing third parties for fraud if corporate managers assisted in the fraud. The core issue is whether the defendants qualify as 'non-statutory insiders' to bypass the Wagoner rule's application. The Trustee alleged that the defendants effectively acted as TSE's CFO or Treasurer, controlling financial reporting and accounting, despite lacking formal titles. The Court, reviewing the allegations, concluded that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support the inference that the defendants were non-statutory insiders, exercising significant control over TSE's financial operations. Therefore, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the Trustee to proceed with the case.

Bankruptcy LawMotion to DismissWagoner RuleInsider ExceptionNon-Statutory InsiderFiduciary DutyCorporate ControlAccounting FraudChapter 11Trustee Standing
References
35
Case No. ADJ10348591 ADJ10349019
Regular
Jan 07, 2019

MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ, SERVANDO VELAZQUEZ vs. ARTEMIO ARCE, SOLOMON MARTINEZ

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior finding that liens for interpreting services were not barred by AD rule 9792.5.5. This rule, requiring a second review request for fee schedule disputes, did not apply because the interpreter services were not subject to an applicable fee schedule at the time of service. Therefore, the lien claimant's failure to request a second review did not preclude the WCAB from adjudicating the lien dispute. The Board reasoned that AD rule 9792.5.5 and associated statutes only mandate the second review process for disputes concerning amounts under an "applicable fee schedule."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.5.5Official Medical Fee ScheduleIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewLabor Code section 4603.2Senate Bill 863Threshold IssueFee Schedule DisputeInterpreter Services
References
0
Case No. ADJ9615494
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

CARLOS SOTO TORRES vs. THE CLIFF RESTAURANT, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an Amended Findings of Fact and Order because essential documentation regarding the timeliness of medical-legal billings and reviews was missing. Specifically, the record lacked proof of service for the provider's invoice, the defendant's initial Explanation of Review (EOR), and the subsequent second bill review. This prevented determination of whether the defendant timely objected to the bill and whether the provider timely requested a second review, necessitating further proceedings at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAmended Findings of Fact and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEDr. Payam MoazzazZenith Insurance CompanyStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 4903.5Independent Bill Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07295
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 24, 2025

Morales v. 88th Ave. Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Elihu Romero Morales, was injured at a construction site in Queens when struck in the eye by a spark from ironwork. He sued 88th Avenue Owner, LLC, and NY Developers & Managers, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The defendants then initiated a second third-party action against subcontractors Feinstein Iron Works, Inc., and Construction Realty Safety Group, Inc., for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed the second third-party complaint with prejudice. The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified this order, denying the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, awarding summary judgment to the defendants on the Labor Law claims, and directing the dismissal of the second third-party complaint without prejudice due to a four-year delay in its commencement. The Court found Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable as sparks are not objects requiring securing for elevation-related hazards, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) inapplicable as the plaintiff was not directly engaged in the eye-endangering operation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentElevation-Related HazardThird-Party ActionDismissal Without PrejudiceSparksEye InjurySubcontractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
22
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05756 [209 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2022

Lopez v. 157-161 E. 28th St., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning the dismissal of second third-party claims for breach of contract, unpaid overtime wages, and breach of constructive trust related to a construction project. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that New Wave Contracting Corp., a subcontractor, was the direct employer of the individual second third-party plaintiffs, not the general contractors Iceberg Developing Co., LLC and Forkosh Construction Co., Inc. The court also found that signed lien waivers and releases by the individual second third-party plaintiffs validly barred their wage and contract claims, as payment was accepted without objection. Furthermore, constructive trust claims were correctly dismissed due to the lack of contractual privity between the individual second third-party plaintiffs and the general contractors.

Construction ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityWage ClaimsLien LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipContractual PrivityRelease WaiverAppellate ReviewThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 1990

In re Kaitlyn S.

This case addresses a respondent's motion for a second psychiatric/psychological examination of his two children, who are subjects of a proceeding alleging sexual abuse. The court, presided over by William P. Warren, J., reviews the application in light of Family Court Act § 1038 (c) and the precedent set by Matter of Jessica R. The judge acknowledges disagreement with the majority opinion in Jessica R. regarding the presumption of need but is bound to follow it. The court finds the respondent demonstrated a need for a second evaluation, based on a review of the initial report by Dr. Peter Ferber and the respondent's expert, Dr. Lawrence Loeb. The petitioner and Law Guardian failed to provide evidence of potential harm to the children from a second examination. However, the court denies the respondent's request for Dr. Loeb to conduct the examination due to perceived bias and insufficient credential submission. Instead, the court orders a second examination to be performed by a court-appointed professional, extending the examination to include the respondent and the nonrespondent mother. A conference is scheduled for August 22, 1990, to select the professional and discuss payment.

child sexual abusefamily lawpretrial discoverypsychiatric examinationpsychological evaluationexpert witnessFamily Court Act § 1038(c)balancing testjudicial precedentcourt-appointed expert
References
10
Case No. ADJ9531226
Regular
Dec 04, 2018

JULICES MARTINEZ vs. SUN VALLEY GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision. The lien claimant argued that the defendant's explanations of review (EORs) were deficient and did not trigger the lien claimant's obligation to request a second review. However, the Board found that the defendant's EORs substantially complied with statutory requirements and provided sufficient guidance to the lien claimant. Because the lien claimant failed to request a second review within the statutory timeframe, their objections to the billing were deemed waived.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantExplanation of Review (EOR)Labor Code Section 4622Medical-legal ExpensesContested ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Director Rule 9794Second ReviewBill Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,342 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