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

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. ADJ7233546
Regular
Apr 12, 2013

REGINALD SWINTON vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, LLC, DALLAS COWBOYS, TRAVELERS, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, PSI

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision affirms a prior administrative law judge's finding in the case of Reginald Swinton. The Board adopted the judge's report and recommendation without further elaboration. Therefore, the original May 31, 2012, Findings and Order remain in effect. The specific details of the claim against the Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, and Seattle Seahawks were not detailed in this excerpt.

Reginald SwintonArizona CardinalsGreat Divide Insurance CompanyBerkley Specialty Underwriting ManagersDallas CowboysTravelersSeattle SeahawksPSIADJ7233546Anaheim District Office
References
0
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. ADJ7337820
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

JOHN BOOTY vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, PMA GROUP, Arizona Cardinals, Fairmont Premier Insurance/Zenith Insurance Company

The applicant, a professional football player, claimed cumulative industrial injury against multiple NFL teams, including the New York Giants and the Arizona Cardinals. The applicant requested to dismiss the Arizona Cardinals with prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the dismissal to be "without prejudice." This preserves the New York Giants' potential right to seek contribution from the Cardinals should they be found liable for benefits. The Board affirmed the applicant's right to choose which defendants to litigate against.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Party DefendantsCumulative InjuryProfessional Football PlayerNational Football LeagueJurisdictionLiabilityDate of InjuryCompromise & Release Agreement
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medina v. Phillips

Plaintiff Philip Medina, an ambulance driver for Shiva Ambulette Service, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2007 and subsequently settled a personal injury action for $20,000. He had been receiving workers' compensation benefits from First Cardinal Corporation, LLC. The plaintiff sought a nunc pro tunc order to approve his settlement, which was initially denied by a lower court. This decision reversed the lower court's denial, finding that the plaintiff was not at fault for the delay in seeking approval, as the carrier had misled him. Additionally, the court determined that First Cardinal Corporation, LLC was not prejudiced by the delay, given that the benefits paid were below the statutory cap and the settlement amount was deemed fair and reasonable.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsMotor Vehicle Accident ClaimsSettlement ApprovalNunc Pro Tunc OrderInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation LawCarrier's LienFirst-Party BenefitsPrejudice ArgumentChiropractic Examination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF THEROUX v. Reilly

The New York State Court of Appeals addressed whether eligibility for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c requires a 'heightened risk' standard for injuries sustained by municipal employees in law enforcement duties. The court concluded that section 207-c does not mandate such a standard, interpreting 'duties' to encompass the full range of a covered employee's job responsibilities. It clarified that eligibility only necessitates demonstrating a 'direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury.' Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division orders in three consolidated cases (Theroux v Reilly, Wagman v Kapica, and James v County of Yates Sheriff’s Dept.) that had erroneously applied the 'heightened risk' standard, reinstating Supreme Court orders in two and remitting one for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipJob DutiesPublic Safety Officers
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sutter v. Albany Capitaland Enterprises, Inc.

Claimant, a bus driver, allegedly sustained a work-related injury in September 1996. The core issue on appeal was whether First Cardinal Corporation, administrator for Empire State Transportation Workers’ Compensation Trust, validly terminated the employer's workers' compensation insurance policy as of August 18, 1996. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that First Cardinal failed to effect a valid termination, citing non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 50 (3-a) (3) regarding proper forms and notice period. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision, emphasizing that public policy requires strict compliance with statutory mandates for terminating insurance contracts under the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy TerminationGroup Self-Insurance PlanStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityWork-Related InjuryNew York LawWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartoo v. Buell

This case addresses whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) applies to structures used for both residential and commercial purposes. The court applies a "site and purpose" test to determine applicability. In Bartoo v Buell, the repair of a barn roof, used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage, was deemed primarily residential, thus granting the owner exemption. In Anderson v Flanagan, the addition of a bedroom to a home also operating a daycare center was found to be directly related to residential use, exempting the owner from liability. The Court concluded that owners of one- or two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work are shielded by the homeowner exemption when the work directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawDual-Use PropertyResidential UseCommercial UseStrict LiabilitySite and Purpose TestScaffold CollapseRoof RepairBedroom Addition
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 20,405 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