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. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00372 [168 AD3d 536]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2019

Malik v. Style Mgt. Co. Inc.

Plaintiff Karam Malik sustained personal injuries after slipping on ice on a roadway between two buildings. The ice allegedly formed from water discharged from a hose attached to a building owned by 514 West 44th Street, Inc., and used by Style Management Co., Inc., a taxi company operating from the same building. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to 514 West 44th Street, Inc., but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Appellate Division found that 514 West failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment as it did not conclusively prove it was an out-of-possession landlord, and genuine issues of fact existed regarding its potential liability for creating the dangerous condition given its close connection with Style Management Co., Inc.

Slip and FallIce AccumulationPremises LiabilityLandowner DutySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalCorporate Alter EgoProximate CauseDangerous ConditionPublic Sidewalk Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chisolm v. Kidder, Peabody Asset Management, Inc.

Plaintiff O. Beirne Chisolm filed a federal lawsuit against Kidder, Peabody Asset Management, Inc. and Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This federal action followed a similar state court lawsuit where Chisolm claimed violations of state labor and executive laws, alongside breach of contract. Defendants moved to stay the federal action and compel arbitration, having successfully done so in the parallel state court case. The federal court agreed with the state court's reasoning, granting the motion to compel arbitration, and found that Chisolm's U-4 Form mandated arbitration under NYSE Rules and NASD Code, as his claims arose from his employment. Additionally, the court denied the defendants' requests for Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions against the plaintiff's counsel, determining that Chisolm's arguments, although ultimately unsuccessful, were not groundless.

Age DiscriminationArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActU-4 FormNYSE RulesNASD ArbitrationEmployment LawSanctionsRule 11Section 1927
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Josephthal & Co., Inc. v. Cruttenden Roth Inc.

This case addresses Cruttenden Roth Incorporated's (CRI) motion to enforce an arbitration award against Josephthal & Co., Inc. (JCI), and JCI's cross-motion to vacate or modify the award. The dispute originated from a compensation sharing arrangement concerning warrants from co-managed equity transactions involving InterVu stock, where CRI alleged JCI wrongfully withheld warrants. An arbitration panel awarded CRI the value of 52,000 InterVu secondary warrants. JCI sought to vacate the award, citing "manifest disregard of law" by the arbitrators for not measuring damages at the time of trial and enforcing a Collar Agreement. The court, presided by Judge Sweet, affirmed the arbitration award, finding no sufficient grounds to vacate or modify it, thus granting CRI's motion and denying JCI's cross-motion.

Arbitration EnforcementBroker-Dealer DisputeWarrant AllocationManifest Disregard of LawContract BreachSecurities IndustryInvestment BankingStock OptionsEscrow AgreementJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00043 [234 AD3d 436]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2025

Gibraltar Contr., Inc. v. Tully Constr. Co. Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order denying defendant Tully Construction Co. Inc.'s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Gibraltar Contracting, Inc. The court determined that a six-month contractual limitations period was not triggered because the condition of "final acceptance of the work by Owner" was not unequivocally met by a

Construction contractStatute of limitationsOral modificationBreach of contractMotion to dismissAppellate procedureSubcontract disputeOwner acceptanceContractor liabilityLabor costs
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1993

Olsen v. We'll Manage, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal by We'll Manage, Inc. from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff Gary Olsen under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. We'll Manage, Inc. contended that Olsen was its special employee, providing evidence of direct supervision, work assignments, the right to fire him, and payment signed by its personnel, despite his wages being drawn from a general employer's account. The court found this established a special employment relationship. As Olsen received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, he is statutorily barred from maintaining an action against the special employer. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted We'll Manage, Inc.'s cross motion, and dismissed the complaint against the appellant.

Special EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarSummary JudgmentLabor LawDirect SupervisionControlAffidavitDeposition TestimonyGeneral EmployerAppellate Reversal
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02068
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

Ging v. F.J. Sciame Constr. Co., Inc.

This personal injury action concerns Albert Ging's accident at a construction site in Brooklyn while employed by Atlantic Detail & Erection Corp., a sub-subcontractor. Ging fell from a steel tube but prevented a full fall, subsequently claiming liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted Ging partial summary judgment against the construction manager, F.J. Sciame Construction Co., Inc., and also awarded Sciame conditional contractual indemnification against Koenig Iron Works, Inc., the structural steel subcontractor. Furthermore, Koenig was awarded conditional contractual indemnification against Atlantic. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed these orders, finding Ging's testimony established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment and that the defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding the accident's occurrence. The court also upheld the conditional contractual indemnification awards based on the specific contract language and the antisubrogation rule.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentFall from HeightStructural SteelSubcontractor Liability
References
21
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05955 [174 AD3d 850]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

Davies v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Gerald Davies, was injured while pushing a cart of concrete over a plywood sheet that covered a hole at a construction site. He initiated an action against the premises operator, Simon Property Group, Inc., the general contractor, E.W. Howell Co., LLC, and the sidewalk removal company, Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). E.W. Howell Co., LLC also filed a third-party action against Allstate Interior Demolition Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court's initial order, which partially granted and denied various summary judgment motions, was subject to appeals and cross-appeals. The Appellate Division ultimately reversed the order in part, granting Ruttura & Sons Construction Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and denying Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Simon Property Group, Inc. and E.W. Howell Co., LLC.'s motion concerning Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and contractual indemnification.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationElevation DifferentialScaffold LawIndustrial CodeSafe Work Environment
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 13,767 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