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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00299 [234 AD3d 581]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2025

Silva v. 770 Broadway Owner LLC

In this case, Carlito Silva, the plaintiff, was injured when a ladder fell and struck him while he was working. He brought an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) against 770 Broadway Owner, LLC, Facebook, Inc., and L & K Partners, Inc. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied Silva's cross-motion. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and that the plaintiff did establish his prima facie case. The court held that the elevation differential was not de minimis and the ladder was not adequately secured, rejecting arguments of foreseeability and intervening causes. The matter was subsequently remanded for further consideration of third-party claims involving Consolidated Carpet Workroom, LLC.

Labor LawWorkplace AccidentSummary JudgmentLadder FallThird-Party ClaimsAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyForeseeabilityProximate CauseElevation Differential
References
5
Case No. ADJ9272008, ADJ9216258
Regular
Apr 28, 2015

LORI SILVA vs. VOLK ENTERPRISES, INC., FIRST COMP INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lori Silva's petition for reconsideration and removal. This petition challenged a prior order denying her request to dismiss or stay small claims actions. The Board found Silva's arguments without merit, adopting the WCJ's report which stated the relief requested in her initial petition had already been granted by vacating the prior order and setting a status conference. The Board also admonished both defense and applicant's attorneys for procedural violations.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJWCAB Rule 10859WCAB Rule 10843(d)WCAB Rule 10842(c)Administrative Director Rule 10205.12(a)(4)WCAB Rule 10845(a)DOR
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Da Silva v. Kinsho International Corp.

Plaintiff Celia Da Silva sued her former employer Kinsho International Corporation and its Treasurer Haruo Maruyama, alleging racial and national origin discrimination under Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law (HRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) following her termination. The central issue was whether Kinsho Int’l, potentially with its parent company Kinsho Mataichi Corp., qualified as an "employer" under Title VII's fifteen-employee requirement. Following a hearing, the court determined that Kinsho Int’l and Kinsho Mataichi did not constitute a "single employer," leading to the dismissal of Da Silva's Title VII claims. The court then exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. A jury subsequently returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the Defendants, and the court clarified that the employee count under Title VII is a merits-based, not jurisdictional, question.

DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment LawSingle Employer DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionMerits-Based DismissalSupplemental JurisdictionNew York State Human Rights LawNational Origin DiscriminationRacial Discrimination
References
20
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 06183 [120 AD3d 1315]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2014

McDonald v. Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.

The plaintiff, Andrew McDonald, appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendant Winter Bros. Transfer Station Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, holding that the defendant established a prima facie defense under the Workers' Compensation Law. The court found that the defendant and the plaintiff's employer, Winter Bros. Waste Systems, Inc., operate as a single integrated entity, thereby extending workers' compensation protection to the defendant as an alter ego of the employer. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to this defense, leading to the proper dismissal of the complaint.

Alter Ego DoctrineWorkers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityIntegrated EntityAppellate DivisionSuffolk CountyTriable Issue of FactRespondent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Puma v. Leffler Bros.

The claimant, a truck driver employed by Leffler Bros., Inc. for 26 years, was terminated in April 1973. He experienced severe back pain and was hospitalized in January 1974, diagnosed with a herniated disc, leading to total disability. In April 1974, he filed a claim for workers' compensation, asserting work-related back injuries over his employment period. Medical testimonies from Dr. Laico and Dr. Thalenberg did not confirm a work-related injury, although Dr. Polifrone noted a history of injury while lifting. The Workers’ Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding no accident as alleged. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryHerniated DiscTruck DriverEmployment TerminationMedical TestimonyCausal RelationshipAccident NoticeBoard DecisionAppeal
References
0
Case No. ADJ6691358
Regular
Jul 16, 2019

JAVIER GUERRA MENDOZA vs. SILVA BROS DAIRY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that found applicant sustained injury AOE/COE and awarded penalties for delayed attorney fees. Defendant primarily argued that the WCJ should have dismissed the claim for underpayment of permanent disability indemnity, rather than deferring it. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that the deferral of the underpayment issue was an interlocutory order not subject to reconsideration, and the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board emphasized the WCJ's discretion to develop the record when insufficient evidence exists.

AOE/COESilva Bros DairyAthens AdministratorsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardOrders and Opinion on DecisionWCJattorney's feespenalty
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forshay v. Star Dairy, Inc.

Plaintiff James M. Forshay was injured in a vehicle accident while riding with defendant Harry J. Huffman. At the time of the accident, both Forshay and Huffman were employed by Mountain Dairies, Inc. Forshay initiated a lawsuit, but defendants argued that the action was barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) due to the co-employee status of Forshay and Huffman. The Supreme Court granted defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment and denied Forshay's subsequent motion for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the orders, concluding that defendants provided sufficient proof of co-employment and that the plaintiff failed to diligently pursue discovery to refute this claim.

Workers' CompensationCo-employeeSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseDiscoveryAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryVehicle AccidentNew York LawLitigation
References
9
Case No. 2017-04040
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2020

Lojano v. Soiefer Bros. Realty Corp.

The case involves Wilson Lojano, who sustained personal injuries after falling from a makeshift scaffold while performing construction work at a property owned by Soiefer Bros. Realty Corp. and leased by ASIF Holdings, LLC. Lojano alleged that his supervisor directed him to use the inadequate scaffold to expedite work, despite a proper scissor lift being available previously. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied motions for summary judgment by both defendants regarding Labor Law violations and awarded summary judgment on liability to Lojano under Labor Law § 240(1). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court found that the defendants failed to establish Lojano was the sole proximate cause of his injuries or a recalcitrant worker, and upheld the denial of conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate CauseCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction AccidentWorkplace Safety
References
19
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04379 [186 AD3d 452]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2020

Da Silva v. Champ Constr. Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action initiated by Devair Da Silva against Champ Construction Corp. following a construction-site accident. Champ Construction subsequently filed a third-party action against A. Logan Insurance Brokerage and its principal, Scott Handwerger, alleging failure to procure workers' compensation coverage, breach of contract, negligence, and fraud. The Supreme Court denied Champ Construction's motion for summary judgment on its third-party claims and granted the third-party defendants' cross-motion to dismiss these claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that Champ Construction failed to establish the existence of an agreement to procure insurance, proximate damages from any failure to procure, or justifiable reliance on the certificate of insurance due to disclaimer language.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Broker LiabilityFailure to Procure InsuranceBreach of ContractNegligenceFraudSummary Judgment AppealAppellate Division
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 333, United Marine Division v. McAllister Bros.

This case involves a dispute between Local 333, a union, and McAllister Bros., Inc., an employer, regarding the arbitrability of an issue concerning an employee's medical examination. Local 333 moved to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was resolved by a Quick Settlement Committee, while McAllister cross-moved to compel arbitration and for sanctions. The court ruled that questions concerning the resolution or deadlock of the Quick Settlement Committee are procedural and must be decided by the arbitrator. Consequently, the motion to stay arbitration was denied, and the cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted. McAllister's motion for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 was also denied.

Labor LawArbitration AgreementCollective BargainingMedical ExaminationProcedural ArbitrabilityQuick Settlement CommitteeUnion DisputeEmployer RightsFitness for DutyFed.R.Civ.P. 11 Sanctions
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 245 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