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

Graziano v. Medford Plaza Associates, Ltd.

Guy Graziano, an employee of Coca-Cola Company, sustained personal injuries after falling in a parking lot and received workers' compensation benefits. His insurance carrier initiated Action No. 2, as assignee, against prior property owners and managing agents after notifying Graziano of the assignment of his claim if he failed to sue within 30 days. Separately, Guy and Maureen Graziano commenced Action No. 1 against prior owners and the current owner, 210 West 29th Street Corp. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Grazianos' action, ruling their claims were assigned to the carrier. On appeal, the order was modified: the dismissal of Action No. 1 was denied, and both actions were consolidated. The appellate court concluded that the carrier had waived its rights as an assignee against 210 West 29th Street Corp. by failing to pursue a claim against them.

Workers' Compensation LawAssignment of ClaimsPersonal InjuryProperty Owner LiabilityStatute of LimitationsWaiver of RightsConsolidation of ActionsAppellate ReviewInsurance SubrogationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rausman v. Baugh

The case concerns a defamation action brought by an unnamed plaintiff against Maimonides Medical Center and its employee, Rosemarie Baugh. The plaintiff, a supervisor, was discharged after Baugh accused him of sexual harassment. The Supreme Court initially maintained a cause of action against Maimonides based on respondeat superior, which Maimonides appealed. The appellate court examined whether an employer could be held liable under respondeat superior for an employee's defamatory statements made during an internal sexual harassment complaint. The court concluded that Baugh's accusations were not within the scope of her employment duties, as she was not acting under employer direction or in furtherance of the employer's business. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision, dismissing the complaint against Maimonides Medical Center in its entirety.

Sexual harassmentDefamationRespondeat superiorEmployer liabilityScope of employmentEmployee tortsNew York lawWorkplace conductSupervisor-subordinate relationsAppellate decision
References
35
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The Matter of the Honorable Alan M. Simon a Justice of the Spring Valley Village Court and the Ramapo Town Court, Rockland County

Alan M. Simon, a Justice of the Spring Valley Village Court and Ramapo Town Court, sought review of a State Commission on Judicial Conduct determination which sustained six charges of misconduct and recommended his removal. Simon conceded the misconduct but challenged the removal sanction, proposing censure instead. The Court rejected Simon's contention, accepting the Commission's recommendation for removal. The misconduct included improper use of sanctions, ethnic smearing, name-calling, a physical altercation, baseless threats of contempt against officials, and inappropriate interference in a political election. The Court found these actions to constitute a pattern of egregious misconduct, irredeemably damaging public confidence, and noted Simon's unrepentant and evasive testimony.

Judicial MisconductJudicial EthicsRemoval from OfficeSanction ReviewRules Governing Judicial ConductAbuse of PowerContempt ThreatsPolitical InterferenceTemperament IssuesJudicial Discipline
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kahn v. Superior Chicken & Ribs, Inc.

The plaintiff, Yousuf Mohammad Kahn, initiated this action against his former employer, Superior Chicken & Ribs, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning overtime pay. The court had previously dismissed claims related to meal periods and statutory contributions. The defendant subsequently filed for summary judgment on the outstanding overtime claims, contending that Kahn was exempt from overtime requirements as an executive or administrative employee. The court determined that Kahn satisfied both the 'salary basis' and 'duties' components of the exemption's short test, citing his application for a managerial position, prior work experience, sole on-site supervisory role, distinct uniform, and prior self-identification as a manager to medical professionals and in a bankruptcy filing. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby ruling that Kahn was indeed exempt from federal and state overtime pay regulations. The defendant's request for attorneys' fees was denied due to procedural non-compliance with Rule 11 and the absence of a bad faith finding under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

FLSAOvertime PaySummary JudgmentExecutive ExemptionAdministrative ExemptionNew York Labor LawManagerial DutiesSalary Basis TestDuties TestEmployment Law
References
12
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 3
Regular Panel Decision

County of Ulster v. Highland Fire District

This case involves consolidated appeals concerning the County of Ulster's group self-insurance plan for workers' compensation coverage. Several fire districts, including Highland, Woodstock, Town of Ulster No. 5, Phoenicia, Flattekill No. 1, and East Kingston, joined the plan between 1979 and 1985, despite being covered under their respective towns' existing participation. Upon discovering this, the fire districts withdrew, refusing to pay withdrawal fees and obtaining private insurance. Legal actions ensued, with the fire districts alleging fraudulent inducement and seeking fee cancellations and premium reimbursements, and the County suing for breach of contract and unpaid withdrawal fees. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the County, finding no "double charging" or damages to the fire districts since they received coverage and the cost simply shifted. The appellate court affirmed, noting the fire districts' fraud counterclaims were largely time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations, and even if not time-barred for withdrawal fees, it would be unfair to avoid payment given the received coverage and benefits.

Workers' Compensation Law § 63Group Self-Insurance PlanFire Districts EligibilityFraudulent InducementStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractWorkers' Compensation CoverageMunicipal LawAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. Action No. 1; Action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1997

Sidor v. Zuhoski

This case involves appeals from an order concerning two related actions: one for personal injuries (Action No. 1) and another for wrongful death (Action No. 2). Joseph and Gregory Zuhoski appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 1. Separately, Colin Van Tuyl, as Executor of the Estate of Janet A. Van Tuyl, and Brianna and Colin Van Tuyl, individually, appealed both the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion and the granting of Martin Sidor & Sons, Inc.'s motion to amend its answer in Action No. 2. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, noting the trial court's sound discretion in granting leave to amend pleadings, particularly when the failure to deny allegations was an inadvertent mistake. Furthermore, the court found an issue of fact regarding Gregory Zuhoski's employment status at the time of the accident, which justified the denial of the Zuhoskis' motion for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentAppealPleading AmendmentDiscretion of Trial CourtWorkers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentAppellate DivisionSuffolk County Litigation
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 21,035 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