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

In re Shane T.

This case concerns a 14-year-old child, Shane T., declared abused by his natural parents. The court found that the father subjected Shane to incessant verbal abuse, calling him derogatory names related to his sexual identity, causing him stomach pain and emotional distress. The court interpreted "physical injury" under the Family Court Act to include harm inflicted by verbal means, leading to protracted impairment of emotional health, expanding beyond physical force. The mother was also found to have allowed the abuse by failing to protect her son, despite knowing of the father's actions. Consequently, Shane was declared an abused child, remanded to the Commissioner of Social Services, and psychiatric and psychological evaluations were ordered.

Child AbuseVerbal AbuseEmotional InjuryFamily Court ActPhysical Injury InterpretationParental Rights vs. Child's RightsFailure to ProtectSexual Identity DiscriminationRemandPsychiatric Evaluation
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00246 [157 AD3d 528]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2018

Casalini v. Alexander Wolf & Son

Plaintiff Michael Casalini was allegedly injured at work on a renovation site when he slipped and fell on a pile of debris. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' in limine motion and dismissed the complaint, citing a prior order that found no negligence by defendant Alexander Wolf & Son regarding the debris. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the motion in limine was effectively an untimely motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212(a) and also premature under CPLR 4401 as plaintiffs were denied an evidentiary hearing. Consequently, the appellate court denied the motion, and the complaint was reinstated in its entirety.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSlip and FallPremises LiabilityLabor LawSummary JudgmentMotion in LimineAppellate ProcedureIndemnificationThird-Party Claim
References
4
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05313 [119 AD3d 758]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Perla v. Daytree Custom Builders, Inc.

Milton Perla and his wife initiated an action for personal injuries against Daytree Custom Builders, Inc. after Mr. Perla fell from a roof during employment and received Workers' Compensation benefits. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation and sought discovery sanctions or to strike the defendant's Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense. The Supreme Court denied their motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendant was an alter ego of Mr. Perla's employer, which could limit remedies to Workers' Compensation. Additionally, the court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate willful discovery non-compliance and lacked a good faith affirmation for the discovery dispute. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ProcedureRooftop FallEmployer LiabilityConstruction Accident
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tillman v. Triou's Custom Homes, Inc.

Charles Tillman, a truck driver for Phelps Cement Products, Inc., sustained a fractured leg after falling from his flatbed truck while unloading cement blocks at a construction site. He sued Triou’s Custom Homes, Inc. (general contractor) and Zurich Masonry, Inc. (subcontractor) alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted Tillman partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, but this court reversed that decision, concluding that a flatbed truck is not an elevated work surface for the purposes of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also reinstated the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Triou, finding specific Industrial Code violations applicable, but upheld the dismissal of the § 241 (6) claim against Zurich as they were not Triou's agent.

Construction accidentFall from heightFlatbed truckLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Industrial CodeGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor liabilityVicarious liabilityCommon-law indemnification
References
15
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08502
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Eddy v. John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed a lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant, John Hummel Custom Builders, Inc., and denying the plaintiff, Mark Eddy's, cross-motion for summary judgment. The case involved a construction worker who was injured after falling from a moving pickup truck while sitting on an unsecured cast iron grate. The court ruled that the accident did not involve an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1) because the fall from the truck's tailgate was considered a usual and ordinary danger of a construction site, not an extraordinary elevation hazard. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's decision to ride in a hazardous position on the tailgate, despite being warned, constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby precluding any liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6).

Labor LawWorkplace AccidentConstruction InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseElevation HazardPickup TruckUnsecured LoadAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
42
Case No. ADJ7534090
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

ALEKSEY VOLOSEVICH vs. SHANE ALEXANDER CUSTOM, INC., YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Appeals Board reconsidered a WCJ's decision regarding a lien claim for interpreting services. While affirming the finding that the lien was not time-barred, the Board amended the order to clarify that the lien claimant is not entitled to Labor Code section 5814 penalties. Jurisdiction was reserved at the trial level to determine potential penalties under Labor Code section 4622 for services related to medical-legal evaluations. This amendment aligns with the principle that Section 5814 penalties are payable to the applicant, not the lien claimant, and were likely resolved by the applicant's Compromise and Release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAleksey VolosevichShane Alexander CustomInc.York Risk Services GroupInc.ADJ7534090Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationGalilei Global Interpretersstatute of limitations
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02574
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2019

Roserie v. Alexander's Kings Plaza, LLC

Sophia Roserie sued Alexander's Kings Plaza, LLC and Schindler Elevator Corp. for personal injuries sustained in an elevator accident. Schindler Elevator Corp. moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied dismissal of the complaint against Schindler Elevator but granted dismissal of Roserie's claim for damages related to an exacerbation of her Chiari malformation, based on a Workers' Compensation Board finding. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed both aspects of the Supreme Court's order. It found that Schindler Elevator failed to establish a prima facie entitlement to judgment dismissing the complaint and that the Workers' Compensation Board's prior determination regarding the Chiari malformation had collateral estoppel effect.

Elevator AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BoardChiari MalformationNegligenceAppellate ReviewElevator MaintenancePrima Facie Burden
References
11
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02968
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Kosinski v. Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Zbigniew Kosinski and his wife, commenced an action against defendants Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc. (BMCC), Concordia General Contracting, Inc. (Concordia), and Lynn DeGregorio, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Kosinski after falling from a ladder during carpentry work. The lawsuit alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified this order, denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) due to triable issues of fact concerning Kosinski's potential misuse of the ladder. Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against homeowner Lynn DeGregorio, invoking the homeowner's exemption as she did not direct or control the work. However, the denial of summary judgment to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 claim against Concordia was affirmed, as Concordia failed to prove lack of supervisory authority.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorStatutory Duty
References
12
Case No. ADJ1083447 (LAO 0872246)
Regular
Mar 04, 2010

FRANKLIN GONZALEZ vs. ARGENT CUSTOM FURNITURE, DCS, UNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUND, CUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLC, CHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant, Franklin Gonzalez, and defendants including Argent Custom Furniture and the Uninsured Employer's Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order denying reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in denying the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDARGENT CUSTOM FURNITUREUNINSURED EMPLOYER' FUNDCUSTOM CUSTOM FURNITURE LLCCHARTIS/ STATE INSURANCE COMPANYADJ1083447LAO 0872246DENYING RECONSIDERATIONworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of New York landowners, filed a declaratory judgment action against Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC and Statoilhydro USA Onshore Properties, Inc. They sought a declaration that their oil and gas leases had expired, alleging issues such as primary lease term expiration, failure of consideration, non-payment, and violations of New York General Business Law. Defendants moved to compel arbitration and to stay the claims of three plaintiffs not subject to arbitration. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration for the majority of plaintiffs, determining that the Federal Arbitration Act applied due to the leases involving interstate commerce, and that the broad arbitration clauses covered disputes regarding lease duration. A discretionary stay was also granted for the Hidock plaintiffs' claims to promote judicial economy and avoid inconsistent results, subject to specific time limits for arbitration initiation and completion.

Declaratory JudgmentOil and Gas LeasesArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActInterstate CommerceContract LawLease DisputeMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsNew York General Business Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 327 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