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
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2001

Honey v. County of Rockland

Plaintiff Alice Honey, a Radio Operator for Rockland County, initiated an action against her employer for alleged retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The retaliation claims stemmed from a disability discrimination complaint Honey filed with the EEOC in April 1996, after which she claimed adverse employment actions, including prohibited shift swaps and harassment. The court considered the defendant's motion for summary judgment. While several of Honey's claims of adverse employment action were dismissed, the court found a genuine issue of material fact concerning the prohibition of shift swaps, linking it to the EEOC complaint. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.

ADA retaliationdisability discriminationemployment lawsummary judgmentadverse employment actionshift swapEEOC complaintcausal connectionprima facie caseRockland County
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 1991

Village of Hempstead v. Roman Catholic Church of Our Lady of Loretto at Hempstead

The Village of Hempstead initiated legal action to stop the Roman Catholic Church of Our Lady of Loretto at Hempstead from operating an overnight shelter in its cellar, citing violations of local and state building and fire codes that prohibit sleeping in cellars and non-habitable spaces due to safety concerns. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied the Village's motion for summary judgment, finding issues of fact and applying an incorrect legal standard. On appeal, the higher court determined that the Village's interpretation of its codes was neither irrational nor unreasonable. Furthermore, the appellate court ruled that the cellar did not qualify as a "public space" for temporary shelter. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granted summary judgment to the Village, and remitted the case for the entry of an appropriate judgment.

zoning violationcode enforcementsummary judgmentappellate reviewnon-habitable spaceovernight shelterpublic safetystatutory interpretationmunicipal lawhousing code
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1994

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Kenneth Yesmont & Associates, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund (plaintiff) initiated a lawsuit to recover $18,135.35 in workers' compensation premiums from Kenneth Yesmont & Associates (defendant), which included liabilities for subcontractors lacking coverage. Initially, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and referred the payroll classification issue to the Superintendent of Insurance for review. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that the dispute primarily concerned coverage, a matter within the court's jurisdiction, rather than merely classification. Finding no factual dispute regarding the subcontractors' coverage or the plaintiff's audit calculations, the appellate court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for $16,369.75.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsSubcontractor LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPayroll ClassificationAdministrative ReviewNew York LawState Insurance FundEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Medi-Tech International Corp.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity. The same order had also granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment, striking that affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no basis to disregard evidence that the injured plaintiff's employer and the property owner where the injury occurred were distinct legal entities. This distinction meant the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law did not apply. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly struck the affirmative defense.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDistinct Legal EntitiesEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityAffirmative DefenseNew York LawJudgment Affirmation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearl v. Sam Greco Construction Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Monahan & Loughlin, Inc. (M & L), suffered serious injuries after sliding off a roof at a construction site while attempting to access safety equipment. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Sam Greco Construction, Inc., and other entities, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, on appeal, the court determined that the safety equipment provided was improperly stored and not adequately placed, constituting a statutory violation that proximately caused the plaintiff's fall. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff's actions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries, nor did the recalcitrant worker doctrine apply. The judgment was modified, denying the defendants' motion and granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leaving only the determination of damages.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineRoofingFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 1996

Downes v. Boom Studio, Inc.

Plaintiff, a photographer's assistant, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while adjusting a paper backdrop at the defendant's studio. He subsequently brought an action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes a duty on owners to provide safety devices during specific construction-related activities. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on this claim. On appeal, the order was modified to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the complaint concerning the Labor Law § 240 (1) allegation. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's activity at the time of the fall did not constitute 'altering or repairing a building or structure,' thus falling outside the protective scope of the statute.

Photographer's AssistantLadder FallWorkplace InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstruction SafetyBuilding AlterationDuty to Furnish Safety Devices
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2004

Transcontinental Insurance v. State

Claimant and defendant, acting as co-insurers for a company, became embroiled in a dispute over defense costs and indemnity payments following an employee's grave injury. The employee's injury, recognized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, led to a third-party action against their mutual insured. Although the claimant initially assumed the defense, it requested contribution from the defendant, which subsequently refused to contribute to a $2.5 million settlement. Consequently, the claimant initiated legal action seeking half the settlement amount and incurred defense expenses. The Court of Claims denied both the claimant’s summary judgment motion for reimbursement and the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim. The appellate court unanimously affirmed these denials, citing triable issues regarding the defendant's duty to indemnify and upholding the defendant's right to a de novo determination of the grave injury issue.

Insurance DisputeCo-insurersDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelAppellate DecisionNew York Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,307 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