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
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
Mar 15, 1994

Avalanche Wrecking Corp. v. New York State Insurance Fund

National Union Fire Insurance Company and Avalanche Wrecking Corp. initiated a declaratory judgment action against the New York State Insurance Fund, seeking reimbursement for defense costs and damages. This stemmed from Avalanche employees' injuries, leading to lawsuits against Republic National Bank of New York (an additional insured under National Union's policy) and third-party claims against Avalanche. National Union, having defended both Republic and Avalanche, sought to recover from State Fund, Avalanche's workers' compensation carrier. The IAS Court initially denied State Fund's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to State Fund. The reversal was based on the anti-subrogation rule, which precludes an insurer from pursuing a subrogated claim against its own insured, citing a potential conflict of interest from representing multiple parties under the same risk.

Insurance DisputeSubrogationAnti-Subrogation RuleSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityAdditional InsuredContractual ObligationIndemnification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2009

Ramos v. Patchogue-Medford School District

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denying motions for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The defendants, including Patchogue-Medford School District, Pav-Lak Contracting, Inc., Park East Construction Corp., East End Concrete, and Pump It, Inc., sought to dismiss claims alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to all defendants and dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action in its entirety. It further granted Pump It, Inc.'s cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint and all related cross claims and counterclaims against it. The court determined that Pump It, Inc., as a subcontractor, lacked the authority to supervise and control the injury-producing activity, and that all defendants lacked notice of any structural defect, which were prerequisites for liability under the respective Labor Law sections and common-law negligence.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationNegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityDuty to SuperviseNotice Requirement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madigan v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Plaintiff Arthur J. Madigan sustained injuries after falling from a reinforcing rod cage while working on a UPS delivery facility construction, leading him to file a Labor Law § 240 claim. The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claim. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff's work involved a significant elevation-related risk, thereby making Labor Law § 240 applicable. The court also dismissed the defendants' arguments regarding the unwitnessed nature of the accident, the availability of safety devices, and instructions not to walk on the cages. Furthermore, it established that UPS, as the overseeing entity and parent company of Newbany, was liable under the statute. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the lower court's order, granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, and denied the defendants' cross-motion.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafety DevicesElevation-Related RiskWorker InjuryNew York Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2002

Hynes v. Start Elevator, Inc.

A former employee and his wife sued Start Elevator after the employee was injured in an elevator accident. Start Elevator then filed third-party complaints against 410-57th Corp., the building owner and employer, and Carmela Maresca, the managing agent. The third-party defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the workers' compensation settlement barred the third-party actions and that Maresca was a coemployee. Start Elevator cross-moved to amend its complaint for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment and granted leave to amend. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to the third-party defendants, dismissing the third-party complaints, and denying Start Elevator's cross-motion for leave to amend, finding no grave injury and insufficient basis for contractual indemnification.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment MotionThird-Party ActionsContractual IndemnificationElevator AccidentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCoemployee ImmunityGrave Injury ExceptionLeave to Amend PleadingsRes Judicata / Estoppel
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2013

McGinley v. Mystic West Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Jenice McGinley alleged a slip and fall injury due to a leaking garbage bag in front of a church. Defendants Mystic West Realty Corp. and Trel Restaurant Inc., operating as Rosie O’Grady’s, moved for summary judgment, asserting they had no statutory duty to maintain the sidewalk and did not place garbage there. The Supreme Court initially denied their motion. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court found defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment, and the church's opposing affidavits, largely hearsay, were insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendants' responsibility for the garbage or the sidewalk. The court also noted that the plaintiffs' assertions were mere conclusions without admissible proof.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySlip and FallSidewalk MaintenanceGarbage DisposalHearsay EvidencePrima Facie ShowingAppellate ReversalNew York LawTort Law
References
4
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

Alicea v. City of New York

This case concerns an appeal where former employees of S & D Maintenance Company sued S&D and the City of New York, claiming third-party beneficiary status under a contract between S&D and the City for parking meter maintenance. The City terminated the contract due to fraud allegations, ceasing payments. Plaintiffs asserted the contract intended benefits for them, citing wage schedules and their long history with parking meter work. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment for the defendants, finding contractual ambiguity. However, the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to the defendants. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were merely incidental beneficiaries, not intended third-party beneficiaries, as the contract lacked explicit provisions for their benefit or enforcement rights, and payments were directed solely to S&D Maintenance.

Third-Party BeneficiaryContract LawSummary JudgmentIncidental BeneficiaryBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewLabor RelationsPublic ContractsEmployee RightsContract Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 1988

Permuy v. City of New York

Gerald Permuy, an employee of the NYC Department of Sanitation, suffered injuries when a truck tailgate opened, which he attributed to his driver partner, Carl McCain's, negligence in failing to inspect the vehicle. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to Permuy on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, stating that summary judgment is seldom appropriate in negligence actions, as genuine issues of material fact persisted. Disputes included whether McCain actually inspected the truck, if his actions were the proximate cause of the accident, and if Permuy shared any contributory negligence given ambiguities in the "operator" definition in departmental regulations.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployment AccidentTailgate MalfunctionDepartment RegulationsContributory NegligenceProximate CauseDriver ResponsibilityDuty to Inspect
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2006

Villanueva v. Southeast Grand Street Guild Housing Development Fund Co.

Plaintiff, an employee who received workers’ compensation, sued Residential Management Associates, Inc. after falling from a ladder. Residential moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff was a special employee and thus shielded from suit under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 [6]. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion. However, this court reversed, finding that Residential demonstrated it controlled the plaintiff's work, establishing a special employment relationship as a matter of law. Consequently, as the plaintiff had received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, the claim against Residential, the special employer, was barred. The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint dismissed.

Special EmploymentWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewControl TestExclusive RemedyGeneral EmployerPremises LiabilityLadder FallNew York Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 21,534 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