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

Adams v. Chicago Insurance

Eric R. Adams, an attorney, sued Chicago Insurance Company for breach of its professional liability insurance policy, seeking a declaration that Chicago had a duty to defend and indemnify him in an underlying professional malpractice lawsuit brought by Patricia E. Novak. Chicago disclaimed coverage, asserting Adams failed to provide timely notice of the potential malpractice claim as required by the policy's terms. The court initially found that Adams, despite his claims of a good faith belief in non-liability, unreasonably delayed notifying Chicago of the potential claim. However, the court ultimately concluded that Chicago was equitably estopped from denying coverage due to its own unreasonable eight-month delay in formally disclaiming coverage after receiving initial notice from Adams and for engaging in conduct that gave the appearance of defending Adams. Consequently, the court denied Chicago's motion for summary judgment and granted Adams' motion, compelling Chicago to defend and indemnify Adams in the malpractice action.

Professional LiabilityInsurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLegal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelTimeliness of NoticeDisclaimer of CoverageFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00854
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2022

Jones v. Adams

James Jones, a security guard at the New York Botanical Gardens, was injured when struck by a pickup truck operated by Toby Adams, an NYBG employee, and owned by Kaleidoscope Garden Design, LLC. Jones, who received Workers' Compensation benefits, subsequently sued Adams and Kaleidoscope for personal injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the action because Adams was a co-employee acting within the scope of employment. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the defendants demonstrated the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) exclusivity provisions, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Exclusivity ProvisionCo-Employee ImmunitySummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury ActionAutomobile AccidentAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionScope of EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySecurity Guard Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. Rochester General Hospital

Timothy Adams, a Bio-medical Engineering Technician (BIOTEC) at Rochester General Hospital (RGH), was terminated after repeated failures to properly inspect and repair critical medical equipment, which posed a direct threat to patient safety. Adams filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York’s Human Rights Law, claiming discrimination based on an alleged mental disability. U.S. Magistrate Judge Feldman granted RGH’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Adams failed to establish a prima facie case. The court found Adams was not disabled within the ADA's meaning, was not otherwise qualified for his job, and presented no evidence that RGH terminated him due to a known disability, as he never informed the hospital of any impairment or requested accommodation.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActADASummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyMental HealthTerminationEmployee MisconductReasonable AccommodationMagistrate Judge Decision
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 1995

Adams v. Alexander's Deptment Stores of Brooklyn, Inc.

Plaintiff Janie Adams alleged that she slipped and fell on melted ice cream at Kings Plaza Mall, sustaining injuries that required lumbar spine fusion. Defendant Ogden Services Corporation, responsible for common area maintenance, moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding a triable issue of fact regarding notice. However, on appeal, the order was reversed, and the complaint dismissed. The Appellate Division found that Adams failed to make a prima facie case against Ogden, lacking evidence that Ogden created or had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Furthermore, an unsworn statement by a witness was deemed to be without evidentiary value, insufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentActual NoticeConstructive NoticeEvidentiary ValueUnsworn StatementAppellate ReviewMaintenance ContractIce Cream
References
9
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopes v. Adams

Plaintiffs Domingos F. Nunes and Manuel Vieira, construction workers, sustained personal injuries when struck by a vehicle while working on the Van Wyck Expressway. They brought a negligence action against the vehicle's owners/operators (Adams) and the general contractor, J. C. P. Contracting Corp., alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The trial court set aside a jury verdict against J. C. P. and dismissed the complaint against them, attributing sole causation to the vehicle operator. On appeal, the court determined that the trial court erred in setting aside the verdict. Consequently, the judgment was modified to reinstate the jury's verdict in favor of Nunes and Vieira against J. C. P. Contracting Corp., with costs awarded to the plaintiffs against J. C. P. Contracting Corp.

NegligencePersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSafe Place to WorkJury Verdict ReinstatementAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorProximate CauseMotor Vehicle AccidentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, current and former correction officers, sued the City of New York alleging race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on employment discrimination claims for all plaintiffs under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, finding that assignment to a rotating 'wheel' or undesirable permanent posts did not constitute an adverse employment action in the discrimination context. Summary judgment was also granted against O'Brien's retaliation claims, as her protected activity postdated the alleged retaliatory actions, and against Quick's standalone sexual harassment claim, which was deemed not severe enough to alter employment conditions. However, the court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims for Adams, Castleberry, Monche, and Quick, finding issues of fact regarding whether reassignments were retaliatory. Summary judgment was also denied for hostile work environment claims (general and Monche's individual sexual harassment claim) due to triable issues of fact regarding pervasive derogatory comments, discriminatory bathroom policies, and Supervisor Olivo's conduct towards Monche. Finally, summary judgment was denied on the Monell claim under § 1983, as there were triable issues regarding the EEO's corroboration policy leading to deliberate indifference to constitutional violations.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionMunicipal LiabilitySection 1983Monell Claim
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 20,431 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