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

Evans v. Citicorp

In a personal injury action, a building maintenance worker sued the building's owner and sole tenant after slipping on snow and ice on the roof. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the tenant and denied it to the owner, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for further disclosure. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified. The action was dismissed against the tenant, finding the plaintiff was its special employee. The owner's motion for summary judgment was also granted, as the out-of-possession landlord was not responsible for general maintenance or snow removal, which was the tenant's sole responsibility, and the cause of the fall was not a structural defect.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeOut-of-Possession LandlordSnow and IceBuilding MaintenanceAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityTenant Responsibility
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walter Ray Culp, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Attorney Walter Ray Culp, III, previously suspended for five years due to an attempted extortion conviction, sought reinstatement of his law license. The extortion involved brokering witness testimony for a substantial fee. After serving a nineteen-month prison sentence and the five-year suspension, Culp petitioned for reinstatement. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility and the Chancery Court for Williamson County both denied his request. The denials were based on Culp's failure to demonstrate moral qualifications, legal competency, and that his reinstatement would not harm the integrity of the bar or public interest. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, citing Culp's lack of credibility, his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions, and the severe nature of his original crime.

Attorney disciplineLaw license reinstatementProfessional misconductAttempted extortionMoral qualificationsLegal competencyCredibility assessmentJudicial reviewAppellate decisionLegal ethics violation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1989

Wolf v. 2539 Realty Associates

This case concerns a dispute between a landlord and tenant over who should bear the cost of asbestos abatement in a leased parking garage. The building's structural steel was coated with asbestos, which, due to governmental regulations (OSHA, NYC Health Department), was deemed a hazardous condition requiring removal or encapsulation. The landlord invoked lease provisions (repair clause and governmental compliance clause) to shift responsibility to the tenant. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the landlord is responsible for the abatement costs. The court reasoned that asbestos abatement is not a "repair" in the normal sense, as the material was functional for its original purpose, and the governmental compliance clause did not apply as the hazard was an inherent building characteristic rather than arising from the tenant's specific use or actions.

Asbestos AbatementTenant ResponsibilityLandlord ResponsibilityLease InterpretationStructural AlterationsGovernmental Compliance ClauseRepair ClauseHazardous MaterialsBuilding CodeNew York City Administrative Code
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2002

Hernandez v. 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp.

Plaintiff Alonso Hernandez was severely injured when a hoist, which lacked proper counterweights and securement, collapsed, dragging him from a six-story building. The court affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding that the hoist was not constructed or operated to provide proper protection. The court rejected the defendant's arguments of recalcitrant worker and sole proximate cause, stating that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the court affirmed the grant of contractual indemnification to the owner, 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp., against the subcontractor, Jumbo Construction Corp., based on the terms of their agreement, as the owner's liability was purely statutory.

Labor Law § 240(1)Hoist CollapseConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 1982

McCormic v. Smith

This case concerns a dispute between tenants and landlords, initiated by the tenants under common law and the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. A jury trial resulted in a judgment favoring tenants for damages and attorneys' fees, although the fee amount was not set. The trial judge subsequently set the attorneys' fees post-trial, prompting the landlords to appeal. The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the appeal, ruling that a motion for a new trial was required. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, clarifying that Rule 3(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure does not mandate a new trial motion for errors committed by the trial judge after a jury verdict and not directly involving the jury's actions or findings.

Attorneys' feesAppellate procedureMotion for new trialPost-trial proceedingsJury trialLandlord-tenant disputeUniform Residential Landlord and Tenant ActWaiver of issuesRule 3(e) T.R.A.P.Rule 59 T.R.C.P.
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06093 [210 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2022

Polonia v. 14 Sutton Tenants Corp.

Plaintiff Charles Felix Polonia was injured after tripping on a wooden plank on a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. He filed suit against 14 Sutton Tenants Corporation and Central Construction Management, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Polonia's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss all causes of action against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Labor Law claims were inapplicable and that Central Construction Management did not create the dangerous condition or supervise the work. The court determined that Polonia's fall was not due to a height differential or lack of fall protection as required by the cited Labor Law sections.

Construction AccidentSidewalk BridgeLabor LawSummary JudgmentFall ProtectionIndustrial CodeNegligenceSupervisory ControlPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07997 [144 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2016

Ying Choy Chong v. 457 West 22nd Street Tenants Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order that granted plaintiff Ying Choy Chong summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendant Bulson Management LLC. The plaintiff fell from a six-foot-high Baker's scaffold lacking essential safety rails while plastering a ceiling, establishing a prima facie case under the Labor Law. The court rejected Bulson's arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident and that conflicting affidavit testimony created a triable issue of fact regarding safety equipment provision. Furthermore, the Appellate Division upheld the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on Industrial Code § 23-5.18 (b) and declined to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Bulson for providing the unsafe scaffold. This decision reiterates employer responsibility under New York's Labor Law for providing adequate safety devices at elevated worksites.

Scaffold accidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker safetyIndustrial Code violationsPersonal injuryConstruction accidentFall from heightProximate cause
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Matter of Tenants United Fighting for the Lower E. Side v. City of New York Dept. of City Planning

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,601 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