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. ADJ1941485 (VNO 0263845) ADJ4137418 (VNO 0270976) ADJ1018222 (MON 0140131)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

GERTRUDE CHISM vs. K-MART/SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition to remove WCJ Zarett as moot due to his retirement, and denied the request for a commissioner's hearing on sanctions as premature. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for a full evidentiary hearing on the defendant's allegations regarding the applicant's attorneys, as these factual issues are best addressed by a new Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's numerous petitions for removal, vacating hearings, and stays were largely dismissed or denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGertrude ChismK-Mart/Sears Holding CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesPetition for Commissioner's HearingRemoval of Judge ZarettVacate HearingStay ProceedingsImposition of SanctionsGuardian Ad Litem
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bahr v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves a complaint initiated by Ricky Carnivale, later substituted by Morton Bahr, on behalf of the Communication Workers of America, against the New York Telephone Company. The complainant alleged a violation of Section 900-2.0 (subd. c) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, pertaining to the transportation of individuals to replace striking employees. The court meticulously analyzed the definitions within the Administrative Code, particularly focusing on what constitutes a 'strikebreaker' and the involvement of parties 'not directly involved in a strike.' The judge concluded that the New York Telephone Company was directly involved in the strike, rendering certain provisions inapplicable. Crucially, the court found a lack of evidence that the individuals brought in met the statutory definition of 'strikebreakers' who 'customarily and repeatedly' offer themselves for employment during a strike. Therefore, the court ruled that a complaint should not be issued against the defendant.

StrikeLabor DisputeStrikebreakersAdministrative CodeNew York City LawUnion RightsEmployer RightsComplaint DenialIndustrial RelationsSubstitute Complainant
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 1985

Guilmette v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff, a former telephone operator for New York Telephone Company, was dismissed for excessive absences and subsequently sought disability pay and a deferred vested pension. The court found that she was ineligible for both benefit plans. Her disability, a 20% binaural hearing loss, did not constitute a total disability, as evidenced by her receipt of workers' compensation benefits, which requires an ability to work. Furthermore, she had only 14 years and 6 months of service credit, falling short of the 15 years required for both disability and pension benefits. The plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment, based solely on an attorney's conclusory affirmation, was deemed insufficient, leading to the reversal of the lower court's decision, the granting of the defendant's motion, and the dismissal of the complaint.

Summary JudgmentDisability BenefitsPension BenefitsExcessive AbsencesService CreditHearing LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate ReviewCPLR 3212Attorney Affirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanna v. Clarke

Albert J. Hanna, an executive delegate of Buffalo Local No. 1, brought an action against Paul J. Clarke, president of the Empire State Telephone Workers’ Organization, seeking a declaratory judgment. Hanna challenged his removal by the union's executive committee for allegedly not taking an active part in a meeting. He argued he was deprived of a fair hearing, as his request for postponement due to dental surgery was denied, and that his actions did not warrant charges under the union's constitution. The court found that while Hanna's actions were "childish, undignified and irritating," they did not justify the charges. Consequently, the court granted Hanna a declaratory judgment, declaring the executive committee's action null and void and enjoining them from disapproving his redesignation on the grounds previously stated.

Declaratory JudgmentUnion LawExecutive DelegateFair HearingDue ProcessUnion ConstitutionInternal Union DisputeWorkers' RightsPostponement RefusalExecutive Committee
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarigul v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of Amplified Wiring Systems, was injured while attempting to connect a cable line to Cablevision hardware on a utility pole owned by New York Telephone Company (NYTel). Plaintiff fell from his ladder, sustaining severe eye injuries. Plaintiff brought action against NYTel alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The IAS court granted NYTel's motion for summary judgment, finding NYTel was not an 'owner or agent of the owner' under the Labor Law. Judge Mazzarelli dissents, arguing that NYTel, as the owner of the pole who leased space to Cablevision, should be held responsible under Labor Law § 240 (1) for ensuring worker safety, citing precedents like Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply and Coleman v City of New York. The dissent would grant plaintiff's summary judgment on the § 240 (1) claim but affirm dismissal of the § 241 (6) claim.

Labor LawScaffolding LawOwner LiabilitySummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionUtility PoleCable InstallationConstruction AccidentStatutory InterpretationNondelegable Duty
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salzler v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff Richard Salzler, a Village of Arcade employee, suffered injuries when the aerial basket truck he was working from rolled downhill due to a defective emergency brake and prematurely retracted outriggers. Salzler, who had just installed a transformer on a jointly owned utility pole, was thrown 12 feet to the ground. The Supreme Court granted Salzler partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, holding defendant New York Telephone Company, a pole owner, absolutely liable for failing to provide proper safety devices. The court also denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, categorizing it as construction work. However, the Appellate Court found that the Supreme Court should have dismissed the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, as the defendant lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work. The order was modified to grant partial summary judgment to the defendant on these two causes of action, while affirming the other rulings.

Construction AccidentWorkplace InjuryElevation HazardDefective EquipmentSafety DevicesAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentLabor LawNon-delegable DutyAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ryan v. New York Telephone Co.

Edward C. Ryan was terminated by New York Telephone Company (Telco) for alleged theft, leading to criminal charges and denial of unemployment benefits. While criminal charges were dropped and the unemployment benefits denial was upheld, Ryan sued Telco for false arrest, malicious prosecution, slander, and wrongful discharge. His wife, Darlene Ryan, also claimed related injuries. Special Term denied Telco's summary judgment motion and struck its res judicata and collateral estoppel defenses. This dissenting opinion argues that the administrative finding of Ryan's misconduct should preclude relitigation under res judicata and collateral estoppel, thus the Special Term's order should be reversed and Telco's cross-motion granted.

Res JudicataCollateral EstoppelUnemployment BenefitsWrongful DischargeFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSlanderAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Staruch v. New York Telephone Co.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning an employer's right to reimbursement for benefits paid. Specifically, the New York Telephone Company sought full reimbursement for workers’ compensation benefits and payments from an ERISA employee welfare benefit plan paid to claimant Janice Staruch. The court affirmed the Board’s determination that the company was not entitled to full reimbursement for ERISA plan benefits because it failed to file proof of the plan’s terms prior to the schedule award, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4) (c). The court also declined to address the ERISA preemption argument squarely, noting it was not properly presented to grant the specific relief sought. Furthermore, the court found it lacked jurisdiction over issues related to 974 other consolidated cases, as only Janice Staruch had filed an appeal in this instance.

Workers' Compensation LawERISA PreemptionReimbursement ClaimSchedule AwardStatutory InterpretationAppellate JurisdictionEmployee Welfare BenefitsWorkers' Compensation BoardConsolidated AppealsNew York Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bottone v. New York Telephone Co.

Plaintiff Salvatore Bottone, Jr., an employee of General Electric, sustained injuries after falling on a debris-littered stairway during working hours on June 5, 1979. He and his wife subsequently sued the renovation contractors, Levi Case Company and New York Telephone Company. A jury found both defendants equally responsible, awarding damages to Bottone and his wife. The defendants appealed, contending the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that Bottone was contributorily negligent, and that the damages were excessive. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of defendant liability, lack of contributory negligence, and reasonable damages given the severity of Bottone's permanent and chronic injuries.

premises liabilitypersonal injurystairway fallconstruction site safetydebriscontractor liabilityemployer negligencecomparative negligenceproximate causeexcessive damages
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2012

People v. Turnquest

The defendant was arrested on charges including attempted murder and assault against his wife, Emutheul Turnquest. The People moved for a Sirois hearing to introduce Ms. Turnquest's prior out-of-court statements, arguing the defendant's misconduct caused her to recant her initial testimony and become 'unavailable.' Despite Ms. Turnquest's sworn affidavit stating her willingness to testify to a different account, the court found her 'unavailable' to the prosecution due to the defendant's actions. The court concluded that the defendant's repeated visits to Ms. Turnquest's home, numerous telephone calls, and use of third parties to influence her constituted witness tampering in violation of an order of protection. Consequently, the People's motion to introduce Ms. Turnquest's out-of-court declarations was granted.

Sirois HearingWitness UnavailabilityForfeiture by MisconductConfrontation ClauseDomestic ViolenceWitness TamperingRecantation EvidenceOut-of-Court StatementsHearsay ExceptionOrder of Protection Violation
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 2,429 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