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

Havas v. Victory Paper Stock Co.

This appeal concerns Leslie Havas, an employee of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, who was injured while manually loading heavy waste paper bales onto a Victory Paper Stock Company truck. The accident occurred due to an unsecured, improvised ramp after the hydraulic lift was out of service. Havas sued Victory, who then brought Morgan in as a third-party defendant. A jury found both liable, apportioning fault equally. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding Victory owed no duty and committed no proximate negligence. This court, in an opinion by Judge Fuchsberg, reverses the Appellate Division's order, asserting that the trial judge properly submitted the case to the jury. The decision emphasizes the foreseeability of the accident and the commingled efforts of both companies' employees, which established a mutual duty of care. The case is remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.

NegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of CareJoint EffortsContributory NegligenceJury RoleAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLoading AccidentThird-Party Liability
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05621 [187 AD3d 1623]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.

This case concerns the Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation, specifically an appeal and cross-appeal stemming from a jury verdict in favor of Lynn M. Stock, as executrix of the estate of James G. Stock, against Jenkins Bros. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied both parties' posttrial motions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that asbestos from Jenkins Bros.' products was a substantial factor in causing the decedent's mesothelioma, rejecting the defendant's challenges to specific causation. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-appeal regarding the jury verdict sheet's presentation of damages for loss of services and society.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaCausationExpert TestimonyJury VerdictPosttrial MotionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial FactorWarning DefectProduct Liability
References
8
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained severe hand injuries while moving an 800-pound wire reel down stairs using an improvised pulley system on defendant's premises. The District Court granted judgment for the plaintiff, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable due to a gravity-related risk. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the statute's applicability to elevation-related injuries and direct causation by gravity, particularly when neither the worker nor an object directly falls. The Court of Appeals determined that the key inquiry is whether the injury resulted from inadequate protection against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential. It concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct consequence of the force of gravity on the inadequately secured reel, making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The first certified question was answered affirmatively, and the second was deemed unnecessary.

Labor LawScaffolding LawElevation DifferentialGravity RiskConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryMakeshift DeviceCertified QuestionsNew York Court of AppealsStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03856 [172 AD3d 1658]
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2019

Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch.

The case involves Guy Cozzi, who appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of his application to reopen his workers' compensation claim. Cozzi had previously filed a claim related to the World Trade Center cleanup operations, which was denied as untimely and not meeting the criteria for the exception under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A. The Board affirmed the initial denial, and the Appellate Division also affirmed the denial of reconsideration. In 2017, Cozzi applied to reopen the claim, citing additional voluntary activities at the site. The Board denied the reopening application, citing a lack of jurisdiction under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as the claim was disallowed after a trial on the merits and more than seven years had passed since the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationWorld Trade CenterCleanup OperationsClaim ReopeningJurisdictionTimelinessBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2002

Conigliaro v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (NYSE) and Building Maintenance Service LLC, dismissing the personal injury complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision. Against NYSE, the court found the plaintiff to be a special employee, which barred the action under the Workers’ Compensation Law. For Building Maintenance Service LLC, the court determined there was no genuine issue of fact regarding whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff’s fall.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation LawPremises LiabilityAppellate DecisionAffirmationNotice RequirementKings CountyNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Papyrus Technology Corp. v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Papyrus Technology Corp. sued New York Stock Exchange, Inc. for patent infringement and breach of contract related to wireless device patents. The NYSE counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment and moved to disqualify Papyrus's counsel, Mr. Tedd Van Buskirk and his firm Frommer Lawrence & Haug. NYSE alleged Van Buskirk had access to confidential NYSE information while previously an associate at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, which represents NYSE. The court found that Van Buskirk must be disqualified due to his prior exposure to NYSE confidences. However, the court denied the disqualification of Frommer, finding that the firm's timely erected and effective screening measures adequately isolated Van Buskirk and prevented the imputation of his disqualification to the entire firm.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestLegal EthicsImputed DisqualificationScreening MechanismsPatent InfringementBreach of ContractConfidential InformationAttorney-Client PrivilegeFormer Representation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leyh v. Property Clerk of the City of New York Police Department

Plaintiff Evelyn Leyh initiated a federal action against the New York City Police Department and its Property Clerk, seeking the return of her seized automobile and alleging constitutional violations. She claimed deprivation of property without due process, that the forfeiture provision of the New York City Administrative Code constituted a bill of attainder, and malicious prosecution. While a state court had previously ruled in her favor regarding the forfeiture, the federal court addressed her remaining claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the due process and bill of attainder claims, upholding the constitutionality of the property seizure procedures based on prior federal rulings. Additionally, the federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malicious prosecution claim, dismissing it as all federal claims had been resolved.

Due ProcessBill of AttainderMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentCivil ForfeitureAutomobile Seizure42 U.S.C. § 1983Supplemental JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law Claims
References
13
Case No. 13-CV-7588 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

New York State Court Clerks Ass'n v. Unified Court System

The New York State Court Clerks Association and Monica Shaw Burns filed a lawsuit against several New York State Judges, the Unified Court System (UCS), and the Office of Court Administration (OCA), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to uncompensated overtime work. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, citing Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The court granted the motions, ruling that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against UCS, OCA, and the State Judges in their official capacities, as Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity under the FLSA. The court also found that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the State Judges were 'employers' under the FLSA's 'economic reality' test, and that employees cannot seek injunctive relief under FLSA. Consequently, the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActEleventh Amendment ImmunitySovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionState Judicial OfficialsOfficial Capacity SuitEconomic Reality Test
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mead v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees

A General Chairman of the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (B.R.A.C.) sought an injunction against the International Union to prevent the transfer of funds from local lodge treasuries to a new Express Division in New York City, alleging a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) due to potential fund mismanagement. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming the transfers were approved and lacked proof of present fiscal mismanagement. The court, adopting a restrictive view of Section 501 focused solely on financial dealings, determined that the plaintiff's claims, without evidence of current mismanagement, did not establish a legally cognizable cause of action. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Union DisputesLabor UnionsInter-union Funds29 U.S.C. 501Injunctive ReliefMotion DismissalRestrictive Statutory InterpretationFinancial OversightOrganizational ReorganizationFederal Labor Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 227 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