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. Nos. 27-29
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2021

The People v. Kenneth Slade , The People v. Kieth Brooks, The People v. Charo N. Allen

This opinion addresses three appeals consolidated to determine the facial sufficiency of accusatory instruments when a translator assists witnesses with limited-English proficiency. Justice Garcia, writing for the majority of the New York Court of Appeals, affirmed in one case and reversed in two, generally holding that an accusatory instrument is facially sufficient even if a translator was used, as long as it does not facially indicate a defect or misinterpretation. The Court found that a translator acts as a language conduit and does not create an additional layer of hearsay for pleading purposes, and that the CPL does not mandate a certificate of translation. Dissenting opinions by Justices Rivera and Wilson argued for clearer rules requiring documentation of translator qualifications and accuracy to ensure the reliability and non-hearsay nature of such instruments, emphasizing the importance of these procedural safeguards, especially given the high rate of plea bargains in misdemeanor cases.

Accusatory Instrument SufficiencyLimited English ProficiencyTranslator RoleHearsay RuleSpeedy Trial MotionFacial SufficiencyMisdemeanor ComplaintsSupporting DepositionsCriminal Procedure LawCPL 30.30
References
48
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Matter of Tenants United Fighting for the Lower E. Side v. City of New York Dept. of City Planning

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
Case No. 2016-790 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

751 Union St., LLC v. Charles

This case concerns an appeal by 751 Union Street, LLC, the landlord, against Linda Charles, the tenant, in a holdover summary proceeding. The landlord alleged the tenant engaged in nuisance behavior, including verbal and physical assaults on building staff and the owner's family, and disturbing a neighbor by banging on the ceiling. The Civil Court initially granted the tenant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the petition entirely. The Appellate Term reversed this decision in part, ruling that while the allegation of disturbing a neighbor required a notice to cure per the lease, the other nine allegations concerning landlord and his employees did not. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment only for the ceiling-banging allegation, allowing the remaining claims to proceed.

holdover proceedingnuisancesummary judgmentnotice to cureRent Stabilization Codelease agreementlandlord-tenant disputeverbal abusephysical assaultappellate review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palais Partners v. Vollenweider

A condominium owner sued a former tenant for back rent for the months of March and April 1995. The tenant vacated, claiming constructive eviction and breach of warranty of habitability due to a neighbor's offensive sexual conduct viewable from his apartment. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the tenant's affirmative defenses and counterclaim, while the tenant cross-moved for summary judgment. The court dismissed the tenant's second and third affirmative defenses, which asserted constructive eviction and a right to a share of the new tenant's higher rent, finding the neighbor's actions insufficient to constitute constructive eviction or a breach of the warranty of habitability. The tenant's counterclaim for damages was also dismissed. However, the court referred the tenant's first affirmative defense, concerning improper service due to an attorney's return address on a CPLR 308(2) mailing, for a traverse hearing to determine if it constituted a jurisdictional defect.

Constructive EvictionWarranty of HabitabilityImproper ServiceJurisdictional DefectReturn AddressCPLR 308(2)CPLR 3215(g)(3)Summary JudgmentAffirmative DefensesCounterclaim Dismissal
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07285
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Northacker v. County of Ulster

Plaintiff Joyce A. Northacker was injured in a car accident while being transported by volunteer Barbara Hyde through the Neighbor to Neighbor program, a joint effort by the County of Ulster and Jewish Family Services (JFS). Hyde lost control of her vehicle, which then collided with a public bus driven by Carla F. Bryant. Northacker initiated actions against the County, JFS, Bryant, and Burton Gulnick Jr., the administrator of Hyde's estate. The Supreme Court partially granted Northacker's motion for summary judgment on liability against the County, JFS, and Gulnick. The Appellate Division affirmed the County's vicarious liability for Hyde's negligence based on judicial estoppel. However, the court reversed the summary judgment against JFS, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding its control over Hyde. The Appellate Division also dismissed the complaint against Bryant, determining she reacted reasonably to an emergency situation. Lastly, the court affirmed the denial of JFS's motion for summary judgment concerning the County's cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification, again due to existing factual disputes.

Vicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorJudicial EstoppelEmergency DoctrineNegligenceIndemnificationContractual ObligationVolunteer Driver ProgramAgency Relationship
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Slade v. Perkins

The case involves an appeal on a shortened record from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The central issue was whether the claimant, a demolition worker, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment when he was assaulted at his job site in New York City. The claimant testified the attack was unprovoked, while a coworker stated the claimant had propositioned a passing girl, who later returned with the assailant. The Board found, based on credible evidence, that the assault constituted an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that issues of fact and witness credibility are for the Board to determine. A dissenting opinion argued that merely sustaining an injury at the employment site does not automatically make it compensable, especially if the claimant's actions provoked the incident.

AssaultDemolition WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentCredibility of WitnessesWorkmen's Compensation LawBoard FindingsAppellate ReviewUnprovoked AttackCompensable Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1990

Manhattan Valley Neighbors for Permanent Housing For Homeless v. Koch

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the dismissal of a CPLR article 78 petition brought by petitioners challenging a Board of Estimate decision. Petitioners sought to annul the Board's approval of a plan to rehabilitate city-owned buildings in Manhattan for transitional housing for approximately 71 homeless families, proposing instead permanent housing. They contended the project required an environmental impact statement (EIS) due to the transitional nature of the residency. The court found that the city properly classified the project as a Type II action, exempt from EIS requirements under SEQRA and CEQR, as it involved replacement in kind and not new construction. The court concluded that the Board of Estimate did not act illegally or arbitrarily in exempting the project from an EIS.

Environmental LawAdministrative LawArticle 78 PetitionSEQRACEQRTransitional HousingHomelessnessUrban DevelopmentType II ActionJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farrell v. Stram

Plaintiffs and defendants, neighboring lakefront property owners in Broome County, engaged in construction work near Oquaga Lake. Plaintiffs accused defendants of negligence, trespass, and nuisance, claiming their activities increased lake turbidity. A jury ruled in favor of defendants on the negligence claim, and the Supreme Court dismissed the trespass and nuisance claims. Plaintiffs appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no compelling evidence to overturn the jury's negligence verdict and upholding the dismissal of trespass and nuisance due to a lack of intent.

Lakefront property disputeconstruction workenvironmental impactlake turbiditynegligence claimtrespass claimnuisance claimjury verdictappeal decisionevidentiary review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03092 [238 AD3d 1088]
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2025

Shimunov v. Ashirov

The plaintiffs initiated an action against the defendants, their neighbors, to recover damages for property injury stemming from renovation work on the defendants' property. The allegations included redirected storm water causing flooding and the construction of an encroaching stone wall. The complaint sought damages under theories of negligence, nuisance, and trespass, along with permanent injunctive relief. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the negligence and trespass claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the property owners controlled their contractors' work for negligence liability and whether they directed the trespass.

Independent Contractor LiabilityNegligenceTrespassProperty DamageSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewNondelegable DutyEmployer-Employee RelationshipAdjoining LandownersConstruction Work
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 25 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