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

Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co.

Plaintiff Svetlana Tikhonova suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Alexey Konovalov, a Russian diplomat immune from direct suit. Tikhonova subsequently filed a claim against Ford Motor Credit Company, the registered owner, and Ford Motor Company, the long-term lessee of the vehicle, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) for vicarious liability. The defendants argued that the driver's diplomatic immunity should shield them from liability, citing precedents from workers' compensation and volunteer firefighter cases. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that there is no public policy rationale or statutory scheme that warrants extending diplomatic immunity to unrelated third parties. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the plaintiff's complaint.

Vicarious LiabilityDiplomatic ImmunityVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Car Owner LiabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPublic PolicyWorkers' Compensation PrecedentFederal Drivers Act
References
17
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04009 [150 AD3d 1507]
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Matter of Jie Cao v. Five Star Travel of NY Inc.

Claimant, a bus driver, was involved in a 2007 accident and successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits, naming "Five Stars Travel Bus Inc." as his employer. Five Star Travel of NY Inc. (Five Star) did not appear after being served, leading to a WCLJ finding it liable for awards and assessments. After subsequent awards and medical treatment authorizations, a settlement was approved in 2013. In May 2015, Five Star sought to reopen the claim and challenge the prior decisions and settlement, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the application due to untimely submission of new material evidence and the non-reviewable nature of an approved waiver agreement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationBus AccidentUninsured EmployerClaim ReopeningSettlement AgreementBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionTimelinessContinuing JurisdictionDue Process
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05325
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2025

Ramos v. Ford Found.

Plaintiff Miguel Ramos was injured when struck by a falling scaffold component. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment to defendants Ford Foundation and Henegan Construction Co., Inc. on plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) and common-law negligence claims, and on their contractual indemnification claim against Harbour Mechanical Corporation. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed Ford and Henegan's second third-party complaint. The Appellate Division modified this order, vacating the dismissal of the contractual indemnification claim. It further granted Ford and Henegan conditional contractual indemnification from Harbour, while otherwise affirming the Supreme Court's decision, including the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Labor Law § 240(1)Scaffold AccidentFalling ObjectsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyAppellate ReviewNegligence Claims
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scarfi v. Bright Star Industries, Inc.

The trustees of the District No. 15 Machinists’ Pension Fund, acting as plaintiffs, initiated this action against Bright Star Industries, Inc. seeking to compel overdue contributions to the fund under ERISA and LMRA. Bright Star moved to dismiss, contending that jurisdiction over the matter was exclusively with the National Labor Relations Board due to previous unfair labor practice proceedings. The court, presided over by District Judge Glasser, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, asserting its concurrent jurisdiction with the NLRB in cases involving both NLRA violations and breaches of collective bargaining agreements, particularly where a valid contract is still in effect. The court also denied Bright Star's request for costs and attorney's fees.

ERISALMRANLRAPension FundCollective Bargaining AgreementUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionMotion to DismissPreemptionConcurrent Jurisdiction
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01876 [181 AD3d 1126]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Markey v. Autosaver Ford

Austin Allan Markey, a general manager for Autosaver Ford, was injured in a work-related fall on December 1, 2015. After informing his supervisor on December 15, 2015, that he intended to file a workers' compensation claim due to requiring surgery for a shoulder tear, he was terminated on December 17, 2015. Markey subsequently filed a discrimination claim against Autosaver Ford under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found in favor of Markey, concluding that the employer retaliated against him and failed to provide a valid business reason for the discharge. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Markey's employment was terminated in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimDiscriminationEmployer MisconductSubstantial EvidenceCausal NexusWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law Section 120Job Performance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. North-Star Construction Co.

Plaintiff was injured at a Noco Service Station while removing anchor plates from a masonry wall. He was on a scaffold, and the plywood platform cracked, causing his foot to go through, leading to back and right leg injuries for which he received workers' compensation. Plaintiff sued North-Star Construction Company, Inc. and Noco defendants for negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to North-Star, ruling plaintiff was a special employee, and erred in dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the Noco defendants. The appellate court modified the order, granting plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment against the Noco defendants on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action and denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss that claim.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawScaffold AccidentSpecial EmployeeSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityConstruction SiteStatutory ViolationNew York Law
References
10
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04008 [150 AD3d 1505]
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Claim of Jie Cao v. Five Star Travel of NY Inc.

Norman Lan Chen, a bus driver, was involved in a 2007 bus accident. He successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits, and the Workers' Compensation Board found Five Star Travel of NY Inc. (his employer) to be uninsured and liable for awards. A settlement agreement was approved by the Board in October 2011. In May 2015, Five Star Travel of NY Inc. sought to reopen the claim and revisit the settlement approval, but the Board denied the application. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that no material new evidence was presented and the application was untimely. The court also held that the Board was correct in declining to revisit the previously approved Workers' Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppealClaim ReopeningSettlement AgreementUninsured EmployerTimelinessJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionBus Accident
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02820 [160 AD3d 1001]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

Ruiz v. Ford

Plaintiff Alan Ruiz, a Verizon service technician, sustained personal injuries when tires fell from an office shed roof, struck his ladder, and caused him to fall at premises owned by 5102 Foster Avenue Trust. Ruiz commenced an action against Mike Ford and the Trust, alleging common-law negligence, which was later amended to a single cause of action against the Trust for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Ruiz's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability and denied the Trust's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court determined that the statute was not implicated as the falling tires were not materials being hoisted or secured, nor was it expected that they would require securing for the undertaking. Consequently, the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed, the Trust's motion to vacate was granted, the plaintiff's motion was denied, the Trust's cross-motion was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryFalling ObjectLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCPLR 4401Judgment as a Matter of LawConstruction SafetyLabor Law Compliance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 1997

McIntyre v. Manhattan Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc.

Plaintiff Maureen McIntyre sued defendant Manhattan Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. for sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, securing a jury verdict of $6.6 million. The defendant subsequently moved to set aside the verdicts or for a new trial, citing CPLR 4404 (a). The court denied the motion regarding liability, finding sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment created by management and the employer's failure to act. However, the court conditionally granted a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced total award of $3,703,000 for emotional pain and suffering, lost wages, and punitive damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesPost-Trial MotionJury VerdictEmployee DiscriminationEmployer Liability
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. v. Penn Star Insurance

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. sued its insurer, Penn-Star Insurance Company, seeking a declaration that Penn-Star must cover a personal injury lawsuit filed against Same Day. Penn-Star moved for summary judgment, arguing Same Day failed to provide timely notice of the claim and that the incident was excluded from the policy. The Court granted Penn-Star's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Same Day's notice to Penn-Star was untimely by approximately ten months, or at least two months even under Same Day's arguments, and that the delay was inexcusable under New York law. Consequently, Penn-Star is not obligated to provide coverage.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentTimely NoticePolicy CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentPersonal InjuryNew York LawInsurance Policy ExclusionCommercial General LiabilityAs Soon As Practicable Clause
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 271 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